The Life Ledger

Fitness is a way of life.

photo credit: SqueakyMarmot

When is eating healthy not … healthy? Apparently when you have a condition known as orthorexia, described as “an unhealthy obsession (as in obsessive-compulsive disorder) with what the sufferer considers to be healthy eating.” Weight of the Evidence points to a Chicago Tribune article on orthorexia, which treats the topic with more than a little tongue-in-cheek humor:

People suffering from the addiction—usually those righteous raw foodists, vegetarians and vegans—obsessively check labels, avoid junk food, plan menus and often eat a healthy diet so they can feel “pure.” Some even make fun of McDonald’s customers.

Orthorexics, for example, “tend to dwell on upcoming menus,” [Dr. Steven Bratman, who is credited with coining the term in the 1990s,] wrote. “If you get a thrill of pleasure from contemplating a healthy menu the day after tomorrow, something is wrong with your focus.”

Actually, planning meals is one of the skills a person needs to maintain a healthy body weight. The alternative—eating at restaurants—is a sure way to gain weight because “every time we eat out the calories are far higher than we intuitively imagine,” said Yoni Freedhoff, medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute in Ottawa.

The article concludes that “Orthorexia, more often than not, is a non-medical term popularized by people who feel guilty that they aren’t eating better and need a name to call people who try harder.” However, the first commenter on the article suggests otherwise:

You clearly haven’t meet a person so devoted to their food it is killing them. I have met a person who has Orthorexia. This person was so depleted of nutrients that hospitalization was the only option. This person struggles to put any food in their body fearing it contains an unhealthy substance. Is that carrot organic enough? Was it next to a carrot that isn’t organic?

Personally, I think we already have a condition that explains that behavior - obsessive compulsive. Do we really need to cast a shadow over healthy eating by drawing an (in my opinion) unfair comparison to anorexia?

According to an article on WebMD, people may suffer from orthorexia and not even know it:

So what constitutes orthorexia?

• Are you spending more than three hours a day thinking about healthy food?
• Are you planning tomorrow’s menu today?
• Is the virtue you feel about what you eat more important than the pleasure you receive from eating it?
• Has the quality of your life decreased as the quality of your diet increased?
• Have you become stricter with yourself?
• Does your self-esteem get a boost from eating healthy? Do you look down on others who don’t eat this way?
• Do you skip foods you once enjoyed in order to eat the “right” foods?
• Does your diet make it difficult for you to eat anywhere but at home, distancing you from friends and family.
• Do you feel guilt or self-loathing when you stray from your diet?
• When you eat the way you’re supposed to, do you feel in total control?

If you answered yes to two or three of these questions, you may have a mild case of orthorexia. Four or more means that you need to relax more when it comes to food. If all these items apply to you, you have become obsessed with food.

Frankly, I’d say many people pay an annual fee for commercial diets that afford them the privilege to suffer at least 5 of the above symptoms.

Thank you for visiting The Life Ledger. If you enjoyed this article, check out the related posts below and subscribe to our feed.

photo credit: jon.nelson

Consumerist turned me to the latest battle in the war on the restaurant industry - making calorie information readily available. San Francisco’s new ordinance requires any restaurant with more than 20 locations to display calorie information on menus or posters, and carries a $500 fine for each violation. This is great news, since bills requiring restaurants to display calorie information, which common sense tells me is a necessary part of treating the obesity epidemic, has historically been fraught with resistance. As the article on Consumerist points out,

San Francisco joins New York City and Washington’s King County in the battle to protect consumers with information, a fight that has not gone well for municipalities. California Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger recently vetoed a bill that would require nutrition labeling throughout the state, and New York City was barred by a judge from enforcing its regulations until April 15, when the plan may be tossed altogether.

The CPSI is serious about this issue. In a press release marking the San Francisco bill, the CPSI outlines their vision of the future:

No one expects to learn the price of your restaurant meal by checking online in advance or by finding out only after you’ve ordered. And at chain restaurants, where menu items are so carefully calibrated and standardized, it would be easy for chains to put calories right on menu boards and even more nutrition information on printed menus.

…It’s hard to imagine that not many years ago, packaged foods in the supermarket did not have to bear the standardized, easy-to-read Nutrition Facts labels. We’re optimistic that twenty years from now, it will be hard to believe that calorie counts were confined to web sites and tray liners, and absent from menus and menu boards.

In order to empower all of us to assist in the fight for what seems like common sense legislation, the CPSI maintains a “Menu Labeling” resource site at http://www.cspinet.org/menulabeling/. Information offered includes a template for requesting menu labeling legislation from your governor, up-to-date news on menu labeling legislation and PDF documents on different related topics. For example, the PDF document on “Myth vs. Reality: Nutrition Labeling at Fast-Food and Other Chain Restaurants” lists and refutes commonly-used responses to requests for calorie information, like the one I received from Disney recently:

Myth: Special orders are common, and it would be impossible for a menu to list nutrition information for all possible different food preparation options and combinations.

Reality: Restaurants only would have to provide nutrition information for standard menu items as “offered for sale.”

• Menu labelling does not apply to customized orders or to daily specials (neither are standard menu items).
• If restaurants can provide nutrition information on websites and brochures, they should be able to put those numbers on menus where people can see them and use them when ordering.

For my part, I’ll be sending an e-mail to my governor and continuing to write about calorie information in restaurants. What about you - would you like to see your municipality or state adopt legislation requiring restaurants to list calorie information in the restaurant?

photo credit: Zervas

Is your coffee creamer the silent killer in your diet? CPSI thinks so, writing a news release stating that

The nutrition label on the powdered Coffee-mate in your office kitchen might list 10 calories and just a half a gram of saturated fat. Those sound like reassuringly low levels of both. But use a more realistic tablespoon-size serving instead of the miserly teaspoon the Food and Drug Administration allows—and unround the rounded down numbers on the label—and you’re looking at 45 calories and three grams of heart-harmful saturated fat. Have three of four servings of your office coffee thusly “creamed” and you’ve stealthily consumed half a day’s saturated fat.

But the liquid version of Coffee-mate—flavored or Original—is worse. Instead of using the coconut and palm kernel oils Nestlé employs in the powdered version, the liquid versions use partially hydrogenated soybean or cottonseed oil. Three mugs of coffee with that (and without Nestlé’s innovative arithmetic) delivers 1.86 grams of saturated fat , not to mention the 2.76 grams of trans fat—which is more than an entire day’s worth of the kind of fat that raises your bad cholesterol and lowers your good cholesterol.

CPSI also released a brochure worth looking at, comparing coffee creamers and listing related nutrition facts.

Interestingly enough, Nestle’s nutrition facts label lists 0g of trans fat per tablespoon, despite the fact “partially hydrogenated soybean and/or cottonseed oil” is listed as the third ingredient. Nestle appears to be following the growing trend for nutrition labels, which they describe on their FAQ pages:

COFFEE-MATE Liquid flavors contain less than 0.5g of trans fat per serving. Although the ingredient statement lists partially hydrogenated oil, the amount is trivial. Therefore, it can be listed as 0 (per FDA guidelines) on the nutritional statement.

Even more alarming is Nestle’s “Concentrate” products, like the French Vanilla Concentrate, which lists .5g saturated fat and 1g trans fat per serving. Assuming the 2tsp serving size is correct, that’s 3g of trans fat per day, just from your coffee!

Personally, I made the switch to using agave and silk when I’m of a mind to drink my coffee with cream and sugar. How about you - after reading about the hidden health cost in using cream in your coffee, will you change your habits?

photo credit: luvi

Fetched from Food and Drug Administration Consumer Updates

The FDA released an article today about lactose intolerance. According to the FDA release, lactose intolerance relates to a deficiency in lactase, the enzyme that breaks down milk sugar (lactose). A couple of interesting statistics the FDA includes:

The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) estimates that 30 to 50 million Americans are lactose intolerant.

Lactose intolerance is more common in some ethnic groups than others. NIDDK estimates that up to 75% of all adult African Americans and Native Americans and 90% of Asian Americans are lactose intolerant.

The FDA release also mentions what foods are most likely to contain lactose. While most are obviously milk-related products, like ice cream, butter, cheese and yogurt, some are not so obvious. Least obvious is a particular ingredient the FDA specifically mentions:

Beware of foods labeled “non-dairy,” such as powdered coffee creamers and whipped toppings. Some of these foods may contain an ingredient called caseinate, which comes from milk and contains lactose. Look for “caseinate” or “milk derivative” on the label if you are trying to avoid milk products.

See the full article for more information.

photo credit: valessio_brito

I know it’s naive, but when I buy “organic” foods, I have the image I’m supporting family-owned businesses who farm using sustainable methods and give back to the local economy. Singing cows from California, sustainable farming raising my grass-fed beef - I buy into the image hoook, line and sinker. Seeing as how the USDA’s National Organic Program defines “organic” as “produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations”, I don’t think I’m being entirely unreasonable.

Imagine my surprise when I read an article at Diet Blog (which in turn cites FitSugar) about organic and natural food labels and the big companies that own them. Among the organic brands I recognize are Dagoba (owned by Hershey), Seeds of Change (owned by M&M Mars), my favorite Odwalla bars (owned by Coca-Cola), Cascadian Farms (owned by General Mills), Kashi (owned by Kellogg), and Silk (owned by Dean Foods). See the entire chart here.

Disease Proof and the New York Times followed up with further information, pointing to an article assembled by Dr. Phillip H. Howard which illustrates, among other things, numerous organic and natural brands that have been purchased or created by big companies. Among the brands I recognize that aren’t mentioned above is Green & Black’s (owned by Cadbury Schweppes), my only other brand of choice for organic chocolate besides Seeds of Change.

Why is all this a big deal? The New York Times says it best:

Obviously, there’s nothing inherently wrong with a big company buying an organic brand. But Dr. Howard notes that many consumers seek out organic foods, in part, because they don’t want to buy foods from multinational food companies.

“Often organic consumers are interested in supporting smaller scale farms and food processors,’’ Dr. Howard said. “In the marketing of a lot of these organic brands the firms try to evoke that image of a small pastoral farm.’’

I personally buy organic and natural foods for two reasons: health and supporting small businesses that practice environmental stewardship. The fact that Coke owns Odwalla doesn’t affect the bars’ nutrition, it does shatter the image I’m supporting small, “good” businesses. I don’t think I can give up my Odwalla bars, but I will definitely be looking for another brand of organic chocolate. Anyone have a suggestion?