If you think you don’t have to worry about trans fats anymore, think again. Once trans fats became recognized as a serious health risk, food companies cut back their use in processed foods. However, hundreds of products still have them and it’s likely they will never disappear entirely from the food supply.

Trans fats and cardiovascular health

When hydrogen is added to vegetable oil it becomes trans fat. Hydrogenation keeps the oil from going rancid. Food companies use trans fats in processed food so the products can remain edible for months. Long after using trans fats became ubiquitous, research revealed that not only does trans fat increase bad LDL cholesterol, it lowers good LDL cholesterol.

Eating trans fats also increases levels of triglycerides, Lp(a) lipoprotein and inflammation. High triglyceride levels contribute to arteriosclerosis. Lp (a) protein is a type of LDL cholesterol that promotes arterial plaque. Inflammation occurs when trans fats damage the cells lining blood vessels, which leads to the formation of fatty blockages.

Trans fats persist

As consumers have become more aware of the health risks of trans fat, food manufacturers have scaled back their use. However, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health have found that about half the industrial food processors in the U.S. still rely on partially hydrogenated oil for cooking, baking and frying.

In an analysis of 270 food products published online in Preventing Chronic Disease, researchers found that 66 percent of them had less trans fat in 2011 than they did in 2007. Most French fries, ice cream and doughnut products were reformulated to qualify for the zero trans fat label. However, popcorn, pies, margarines and rolls averaged more than 1.5 grams of trans fats per serving. In fact, Pop Secret’s Butter Popcorn has 5 grams of trans fat per serving, more than the American Heart Association advises against consuming over several days.

Deceptive food labels

Food labels don’t list a Daily Value for trans fat because a minimum safe level has yet to be established. The AHA recommends no more than 1 percent of total daily calories. For a 2,000 calorie a day diet, that’s 2 grams of trans fat or less, or about 20 calories.

The Harvard study emphasizes the importance of understanding food labels. The majority of the reformulated products listed zero trans fat on the label. However, the FDA allows processed foods with up to 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving to be labeled trans fat free.

Breaking the code

To mask the appearance of trans fats, the single serving on nutrition labels is deliberately smaller than what the average person will eat. A single serving of cookies (one cookie) could have as much as a half gram of trans fat and be labeled “0 Trans Fats.” Have four and you’re right at the AHA safe limit for the day.

If the label lists Trans Fat as 0g, the words “partially hydrogenated” are a dead giveaway. Products with “fully” or “completely” hydrogenated oil don’t contain trans fat. However, if the label just says “hydrogenated” vegetable oil, it probably means there are trans fats hiding in there somewhere.

Source: MedPage Today, Food Navigator, Mayo Clinic, WebMD

There is a growing consensus among health experts that sugar is the new tobacco: harmful, addictive and subject to regulation. To stave off regulation, the sugar industry has been using the tobacco industry tactics to create uncertainty and confusion among consumers about the health effects of sugar. In fact, a recent analysis of sugar studies has found that if a study questions the link between sugar and obesity, it was likely funded by the sugar industry.

Sugar industry bias

Researchers from Laval University in Quebec embarked on a review of published studies investigating the link between sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity. They presented their results recently at the 2013 European Congress on Obesity in Liverpool, England.

Among 17 studies analyzed, 13 conducted by independent researchers found a strong link between consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and obesity. The four studies funded by the beverage industry found little to no evidence that sodas and juices could be associated with obesity.

“Results support the hypothesis of a master plan, based on subtle intervention, that has been developed by the food industry,” said study leader Philippe de Wals in a press release, “to instill doubt regarding the adverse effects of [sugar-sweetened beverages] and to prevent the implementation of public health interventions and policies aiming to reduce their consumption,”

The new tobacco

Sowing confusion among consumers is a time-honored tactic pioneered by the tobacco industry nearly 60 years ago. For example, Forbes reports that in 1954 the Tobacco Research Institute bought a full-page ad in more than 400 U.S. newspapers titled: “A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers.”

The ad included clauses such as “We accept an interest in people’s health as a basic responsibility, paramount to every other consideration in our business;” “We believe the products we make are not injurious to health;” and “We always have and always will cooperate with those whose task it is to safeguard the public health.”

The message from 1954 is very similar to Coca-Cola’s 2013 “Coming Together campaign. The company expresses genuine concern for the public’s health, pledges to be transparent about the calorie content of its products, and promotes its commitment to encouraging “moderation” in the consumption of its products.

Decades of deception

Back in the 1970s, the sugar industry was under attack. Scientists and doctors linked it to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. A poll showed that most Americans thought sugar was fattening. Industry ads claiming that eating sugar helped weight loss drew the attention of the Federal Trade Commission, and the Food and Drug Administration was evaluating the safety of eating sugar.

The Sugar Association launched a campaign with money collected from major sugar brands to fund scientific papers concluding that sugar is harmless that could be used by lobbyists to sway gullible politicians. The FDA came out in support of sugar. Even the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association approved it as part of a healthy diet.

Today, the sugar industry still succeeds in obfuscating the issue. It’s goal remains the same: increasing sugar consumption by creating studies that can be used to cast doubt on unfavorable sugar research.

Source: MedPage Today, Forbes, Mother Jones

The link between sodium intake and high blood pressure has been disputed, but a new study found that people with hypertension tend to crave salt. The study also found that using seasonings could help wean people from their salt cravings. Those who try alternatives to salt usually discover interesting new flavors once their taste buds have time to adjust.

Flavor science run amok

Instead of applying flavor science to make healthy food choices easier, the food industry exploits this knowledge of taste to make unhealthy foods irresistible. Salt and other forms of sodium such as monosodium glutamate (MSG) are relied upon heavily as a flavor enhancer.

High sodium intake has long been linked to high blood pressure, a condition afflicting about one in three American adults (67 million) that puts them at risk for heart disease, stroke, kidney damage and other health problems. A new study suggests that people with hypertension are naturally drawn to salty foods. The researchers also found that adopting herbs and seasonings could help curtail salt cravings.

Reducing salt cravings

Scientists from Sao Paulo University in Brazil presented their findings at the 2013 meeting of the American Society of Hypertension. They found that participants with high blood pressure were twice as likely to prefer bread treated with high concentrations of salt than people with normal blood pressure.

Researchers tested 44 seniors with an average age of 73, including 16 with normal blood pressure. All were given three pieces of French bread with varying amounts of salt on each. About 68 percent of those with high blood pressure preferred the saltiest bread, compared with 31 percent of those with normal blood pressure.

Adding other seasonings to the salted bread, however, reduced salt cravings across the entire group. Two weeks later, only 14 percent of the hypertensive participants preferred the salty bread when it was dusted with oregano, compared with none of the people with normal blood pressure.

Taste retraining

If you have high blood pressure, it is possible to retrain your taste buds over the course of two or three weeks. Those accustomed to eating lots of salt may find that foods taste bland at first, but the body and the brain eventually adjust when given the chance. People who do so are often surprised at how salty some foods taste.

Its been shown that the average person can’t detect reductions in sodium levels up to as much as 25 percent. Start cutting back gradually and consistently over time, rather than all at once, so you don’t undermine the enjoyment of food.

Quit processed foods

Processed foods and prepared foods are the greatest sources of sodium in the American diet. By choosing fresh foods, you can decide how much or how little salt to add. Fruits and vegetables are naturally low in sodium, and many are good sources of potassium, which you need more than sodium.

Become accustomed to cooking with healthy fats and oils. Try roasting vegetables such as peppers, Brussels sprouts and squash in olive oil instead of boiling them with salt. Instead of salt, use black peppers on eggs and pasta. Use fresh herbs like basil, oregano, mint or others with pasta dishes, vegetables and meat. Use ripe tomatoes, garlic and herbs to flavor sauces. Citrus fruit juices such as lemon and limes add zesty flavor to fish, chicken and pork.

Cooking with seasonings

Oregano: used in the Brazilian study, is a natural for pizza, tomato sauces, Greek salads, fish or lamb dishes, omelettes and vegetables

Sage: pork, game or tomato sauces

Thyme:  fish and chicken

Basil: tomatoes or tomato sauces and pasta dishes

Bay Leaves: casseroles, soups and pates

Source: MedPage Today, WebMD, Harvard School of Public Health, Get Fit

Immigrants coming to the U.S. in search of a better life are sacrificing their health in the process. Adopting the American diet as they assimilate into society puts them on the American path to obesity and chronic disease. Numerous studies have shown that the longer immigrants live here, the more likely they are to have heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes.

Land of milk and honey

Since the 1970s studies have shown that immigrants live several years longer than American-born whites. Newer research is showing that the immigrant advantage wears off as subsequent generations adopt American habits such as smoking, drinking, high-calorie diets and sedentary lifestyles.

A 2011 study by researchers at the University of North Carolina shows how coming to America leads Mexicans to eat more saturated fat, sugar, salty snacks, pizza, and French fries. They compared data from the Mexican National Nutrition Survey with the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Getting supersized

Arriving in the U.S. resulted in key changes to their diets that increased intake of calories and fat. For example, researchers learned that most Mexicans drink their coffee black, but start adding cream and sugar once in the U.S. Consumption of fruit juice nearly tripled and consumption of sugar-sweetened sodas doubled.

Ester Angeles told the New York Times she was amazed at the size of American hamburgers when she first arrived in the U.S. “I thought, this is really a country of opportunity,” she said. “Look at the size of the food!” Angeles, who has since developed diabetes, said having the money to spend on fast food was also a sign of success.

American identity

Another study from the University of Washington suggests that immigrants are compromising their health because of a desire to fit in with the locals. Researchers surveyed Asian-American and white college students and found children of immigrants are often embarrassed by eating their native foods in front of Americans.

To further investigate the affect of this insecurity, researchers asked a group of Asian-Americans to order meals from local Asian and American restaurants. Before beginning, some participants were told, “Actually, you have to be an American to be in this study,” as a way of threatening their American identity. Those who were threatened chose more American food such as hamburgers and grilled cheese sandwiches than the others and ended up consuming an average of 182 more calories and 12 additional grams of fat.

Land of obesity and diabetes

Meanwhile, obesity rates are increasing and diabetes is soaring among Hispanics as the cultural dietary protection they brought with them disappears. According to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, nearly twice as many Hispanic adults as non-Hispanic white adults have diabetes and Hispanic children are 51 percent more likely to be obese than non-Hispanic white children.

As Ms. Angeles told the times, “In Mexico, we ate healthily and didn’t even know it.”

Source: New York Times, NBC News, Futurity

How much salt is too much? According to a new analysis of salt studies by the Institute of Medicine, nobody knows for sure. Researchers did conclude, however, that no evidence shows health benefits resulting from current guidelines on sodium intake.

Differing views on sodium

Public health authorities were outraged and the salt industry was elated when the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report on an expert committee’s analysis of recent research on sodium consumption. According to the analysis, no clear reason has yet been found for reducing sodium consumption to less than 2,300 milligrams a day.

Government guidelines suggest limiting sodium intake to no more than 2,300 mg. African Americans, people older than 51 or those living with hypertension, diabetes or kidney disease are advised to reduce sodium intake to 1,500 mg a day. The American Heart Association recommends that everyone limit sodium to 1,500 mg a day.

Rationale behind current guidelines

Current recommendations on sodium come from a 2005 analysis of research on sodium consumption by the IOM. According to Dr Brian Strom of the University of Pennsylvania, who led the committee that performed the new analysis, those numbers did not come from research on actual health outcomes. Rather, it was determined that 1,500 mg was the lowest a person could go and still get enough calories. The 2,300 mg level was set as the threshold where blood pressure begins to rise.

Those numbers were taken in a literal context by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services, which set existing sodium guidelines in 2005. The new analysis will be used to revise those guidelines, which will be issued in 2015.

Flawed studies, lack of data

The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention charged the IOM panel to examine whether eating less salt directly affects longer-term outcomes such as heart attacks and death—a cause-and-effect relationship that is elusive for any study. According to the panel, many of the studies it reviewed had quality problems that suggested only questionable associations between sodium consumption and health.

Strom made clear that the IOM was not saying that people shouldn’t lower their sodium intake. However, due to flawed studies, there is a lack of data to show that going below 2,300 will make a difference for those populations the government is advising to cut down to 1,500. In fact, many of the recent studies of higher quality published since 2005 found adverse effects at lower sodium levels, without showing any benefits.

Too little salt?

Humans do need salt to survive, although it’s not clear exactly how much. Reducing sodium levels too far can be dangerous. The body needs salt to regulate triglyceride levels in the blood, control insulin resistance and maintain the sympathetic nervous system that controls the internal organs. A lack of sodium can compromise these functions and increase the risk of heart disease.

In a statement, the Salt Institute seized upon the finding that too little salt could be harmful.

“It is good to see that this report cautions against drastic sodium reduction efforts to get people to consume dangerously low levels of sodium of 1,500 mg a day,” said Morton Satin, vice president of science and research at the institute. “There is no scientific justification for population-wide sodium reduction to such low levels, and the recognition by the IOM experts that such low levels may cause harm may help steer overzealous organizations away from reckless recommendations.”

Unachievable goal?

As for those reckless recommendations, the American Heart Association is not changing its position. In a statement of its own, the association rejects the IOM’s conclusions and said its advice to limit sodium to1,500 mg a day is based on epidemiological data and studies that assessed the effects of sodium consumption on blood pressure.

Perhaps the controversy is much ado about a moot point. Unless you always eat at home and always cook from scratch, it’s very hard to reach 2,300 and impossible to hit 1,500. The average American consumes about 3,400 mg or more of salt every day. Only about 11 percent comes from a saltshaker, according to the IOM. Most sodium is hidden in processed foods, prepared foods and fast foods—the bulk of the American diet.

Source: Associated Press, New York Times, USA Today

Fast food chains get most of the blame for overeating that leads to obesity. New research shows that sit-down meals served at casual dining restaurants pack even more calories, sometimes as much as you need to get through an entire day. What’s more, small independent restaurants often serve up significantly more calories, fat and salt than national franchises.

Healthy fast food?

Eating out can be a fun, relaxing change of pace from cooking at home … until you become aware of the mind-blowing total of calories you’re eating. Two new studies published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine actually make fast food look like a healthy choice.

While it’s recommended that the average adult consume about 2,000 calories a day, the study from the University of Toronto found that going out for either breakfast, lunch or dinner and being served at your table added an average of 1, 128 calories to a person’s daily intake. The researchers noted that in comparison, previous research found the average fast food meal delivers 881 calories.

Supersize numbers

Using nutrition information posted on restaurant websites, 685 meals and 156 desserts served at 19 restaurant chains were analyzed. Those 1,128 calories in the average meal also included 151 percent of recommended daily salt intake, 89 percent of the daily limit for non-saturated fat, 83 percent of saturated/trans fats and 60 percent of daily cholesterol intake. One percent of meals had less than 600 milligrams of sodium—40 percent of the healthy daily limit of 1,500 mg.

The average lunch totaled more than 1,000 calories. The average breakfast soared even higher to 1,226 calories. Indulging in dessert added another 549 calories on average, with 43 percent of recommended intake for non-saturated fat and 68 percent of safe trans fat limits. The average dessert also held an average 11 teaspoons of sugar.

Calorie bomb explodes

In the other JAMA Internal Medicine study, researchers from Tufts University in Boston focused on smaller independent restaurants. The establishments were chosen because they had less than 20 locations, making them exempt from posting calorie counts and nutrition information as required by health care laws going into effect later in 2013.

Instead of scanning nutrition information online, Tufts researchers analyzed samples of more than 40 of the most frequently ordered entrees in local restaurants around Boston using a process called bomb calorimetry, which calculates calories based on the amount of heat generated when food is burned.

How to gain weight, guaranteed

They found that the average lunch or dinner entrée—without beverages, appetizers or desserts—totaled 1,327 calories. Nearly 10 percent contained more than a day’s worth (2000) of calories. Some, such as a rib dinner with all the trimmings and 3,500 calories, loaded nearly enough energy content for two days on a single plate.

Meals at independent restaurants averaged 17 percent more calories than similar meals at national chains, as well as 49 percent more energy content than similar meals if they were prepared at home.

The Tufts researchers noted that their findings are particularly meaningful given the fact that eating just 100 more calories a day than you need is predicted to pack on from 7 to 16 extra pounds in a year.

Source: MedPage Today, ABC News, Health, Daily RX

In addition to health issues, there are a lot of moral conundrums surrounding the notion of eating meat, such as inhumane treatment of animals, greenhouse gasses and waste of land and water resources. A Dutch scientist on the cutting edge of in vitro meat, or cultured meat, wants to solve those problems. But it may take awhile—his first test tube burger cost about $325,000 to develop.

Meat production and the environment

According to a 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), meat production spews more greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide than either transportation or industry. The FAO report found that current production levels of meat contribute between 14 and 22 percent of the 36 billion tons of greenhouse gases the world produces every year. In fact, producing half a pound of hamburger releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as driving a 3,000-pound car nearly 10 miles.

Growing meat in the lab

Dr. Mark Post, a scientist at Maastricht University in the Netherlands, is growing a five-ounce hamburger in his lab assembled from 20,000 thin strips of beef muscle tissue cultured from stem cells. When his test tube burger is ready for the grill, an event is planned in London to demonstrate the viability (and taste) of cultured meat.

Dr. Post told the New York Times that the tissue “tastes reasonably good.” At the London event he plans to add only salt and pepper.

Although Dr. Post has figured out how to grow meat in the lab, today the process is prohibitively expensive in terms of time and money. An anonymous donor contributed $325,000 to finance the five-ounce burger, which has taken several months longer to grow than originally planned. But Dr. Post is undaunted.

Reducing the global cattle herd

“The point is, we already have sufficient technology to make a product that we could call meat or cultured beef, and we can eat it and we survive,” he said in his interview with the Times. “If we can reduce the global herd a millionfold, then I’m happy.”

The challenge now will be to reduce the cost and accelerate the rate at which billions of cells can take the form of a meat patty.

Dr. Post uses techniques adapted from medical research for growing tissues and organs. A type of stem cell found in muscle tissue called a myosatellite cell is obtained from the neck of a cow and put into petri dishes filled with fetal calf serum as a growing medium. The myosatellite cells are left to grow and divide for about three weeks. Next, the growing medium is reduced to stress the cells, which causes them to transform into muscle cells over time.

Eventually the cells grow into primitive muscle fibers called myotubes and start filling out with protein. When the tissue is about half an inch long and a twenty-fifth of an inch in diameter, its ready to be aggregated into a hamburger.

Future of fast food?

News of Dr. Post’s progress has already generated questions and outrage by opponents of genetically engineered crops. However, he insists that cultured meat should be as safe as, or safer than, conventional meat, and might even be made to be healthier. Plus, considering the potential cost advantages—no land, animal feed, slaughtering or transportation required—test tube burgers could be perfect for fast food chains.

Cultured meat could also help fast food chains get rid of the headaches caused by revelations of animal cruelty that social media is making increasingly available to the public. Last summer In-N-Out, McDonald’s, Jack in the Box, Burger King and other chains were forced to quit doing business with a certain California slaughterhouse after undercover video showing cattle being electrocuted, sprayed with hot water or shot in the head and then suffocated by workers standing on their faces.

Compared with that grisly tableau, a test tube burger is looking pretty good.

Source: New York Times, Scientific American, Los Angeles Times

A new study suggests the common practice of feeding arsenic-based drugs to chickens exposes consumers to inorganic arsenic, a carcinogen. A U.S. poultry association slammed the study, claiming that the amount of arsenic found in the chicken was far less than the safety limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency for arsenic in drinking water.

Chicken consumption soars

According to the National Chicken Council, chicken consumption in the U.S. has nearly tripled since the 1960s. The average American ate an estimated 83 pounds of chicken in 2011, compared to 30 pounds in 1965. Researchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future say that means more consumers are being exposed to higher levels of arsenic.

Why feed chicken arsenic?

FDA approval for arsenic-based drugs, or arsenicals, began in 1944. Since then more than 100 arsenicals are approved to promote growth and make meat look an appetizing pink in chickens, turkeys and pigs. Use of arsenicals is standard practice on industrial chicken farms. The industry estimates that in 2010, 88 percent of about 9 billion chickens grown in the U.S. were treated with Roxarsone, the top selling arsenical.

Roxarsone, sold under the brand name 3-Nitro, contains organic arsenic, a much less toxic version than inorganic arsenic, a known carcinogen. It has been believed that the birds excreted the organic arsenic and were done with it. However, evidence from the new chicken study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, suggests the chickens may be metabolizing it into cancer-causing inorganic arsenic.

Cooking increased arsenic levels

Researchers collected 140 samples of chicken from grocery stores in 10 cities across the U.S. from December 2010 to June 2011. They tested for inorganic arsenic levels and found that chicken grown on industrial farms contained amounts of about two parts per billion. The organic chicken tested contained about half a part per billion.  Each chicken sample of chicken was cut in half and both raw and cooked parts were tested. Cooking not eliminate the arsenic and the cooked samples had higher levels of inorganic arsenic.

Is roxarsone the culprit?

In 2011, after FDA researchers found that feeding roxarsone to chickens increased concentrations of inorganic arsenic in their livers, the agency announced that Pfizer would voluntarily suspend sales of roxarsone in the U.S.

Researchers said they tested chicken samples before roxarsone sales were suspended to see if the drug was indeed the source of elevated levels of inorganic arsenic. The FDA considers safe any level of total arsenic below 500 parts per billion. Industry critics of the study seized upon the low levels of inorganic arsenic found in the chicken.

Chicken industry spin

“It is not surprising or worrisome that very low levels of arsenic were found on chicken,” said spokesperson Ashley Peterson in a statement from the National Chicken Council.  “Arsenic is a naturally occurring element in our environment that is widely distributed within the earth’s soil, air and water.”

Peterson noted that the EPA set the safety limit for the amount of arsenic in drinking water at 10 parts per billion, five times less than the 2 parts per billion found in chicken by the researchers.  She also compared the amount of inorganic arsenic in the chicken to the equivalent exposure gained by drinking an additional glass of water every day.

Meanwhile, roxarsone and other arsenicals remain approved for use. Pfizer still makes millions selling the arsenical nitarsone in the U.S. and could start selling roxarsone again if it chooses to.

Source: EMax Health, Huffington Post, World Poultry, New York Times

Subway has become the largest fast food chain in the world promoting its sandwiches as healthier than burgers. However, a new study comparing Subway with McDonald’s, the former largest fast food chain in the world, has found little difference between the two. Young Subway customers consumed nearly as many calories as they did eating at McDonald’s.

Healthy alternative to fast food?

Subway spends millions supporting its image as a healthy alternative to fast food. But a new study published in Journal of Adolescent health suggests that it’s not where you eat but what you choose off the menu that matters. For example, Subway’s foot-long Big Philly Cheesesteak delivers about 1,000 calories and 2,560 grams of sodium, compared to a mere 550 calories and 970 grams of sodium in a McDonald’s Big Mac.

Too many calories

Researchers from the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health recruited about 100 adolescents aged 12 to 21 to eat at McDonald’s and Subway restaurants. The participants went to each restaurant on different weekdays between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m., and paid for the meals with their own money. Receipts were collected to track their orders. Using nutrition information available on each chain’s website, they calculated the nutritional value of what was purchased.

According to the researchers, meals from both restaurants are likely to contribute toward overeating and obesity on an equal scale. “We found that there was no statistically significant difference between the two restaurants, and that participants ate too many calories at both,” said lead author Dr. Lenard Lesser.

Comparing calories, sugar, carbohydrates and sodium

Meals at McDonalds averaged 1,038 calories. Subway meals averaged 955 calories. But the average Subway sandwich purchase beat out McDonald’s at 784 calories compared to 582 calories. Lesser noted the Institute of Medicine recommends that school lunches not exceed 850 calories. An adolescent should consume an average of about 2,400 calories in a day.

In addition to calories, the study showed that people consume a nearly equal amount of sugar, carbohydrates and sodium at both restaurants. Among the findings:

• Customers in the study purchased sugary drinks averaging 61 calories at Subway, and 151 calories at McDonald’s.
• Side items such as french fries and potato chips added an average of 35 calories at Subway compared with 201 calories at McDonald’s.
• Carbohydrates averaged 102 grams of per meal at Subway, 128 grams at McDonald’s.
• Subway meals contained an average of 36 grams of sugar, compared to 54 grams at McDonald’s.
• Subway meals contained an average of 41 grams of protein, compared to 32 grams at McDonald’s.
• Sodium intake averaged 2,149 mg at Subway; 1,829 mg at McDonald’s.

Spend more, eat more

Despite the healthy image it markets to the masses, Subway marketing and merchandising at the store level is designed to encourage consumers to spend more money—and eat more calories. The most expensive, highest calorie menu items are the most heavily promoted. Chips and cookies are displayed at the cash register, where employees up-sell every customer toward additional calories.

Lesser wrote that the most healthy thing to do is to cook at home. “Parents should steer their children away from fast-food restaurants,” he said. “No matter which one they choose, they are likely to purchase too many calories.”

Source: Science Daily, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal

The fertility rate in the U.S. has slipped below replacement levels. Ovulation disorders account for about 25 percent of infertility cases. A new study suggests boosting protein intake could boost fertility, however a healthy diet in general is essential for women planning to become pregnant.

Poor diet, low fertility rate

U.S. births are at their lowest level since 1920. A deep recession and declining immigration have been blamed for pushing the U.S. fertility rate below the replacement level of 2.1—the number of children women must have to keep the population stable. Could the sorry state of the American diet also factor in with this problem that is threatening the nation’s future?

It’s long been believed that food and fertility are linked. The more balanced a woman’s diet, the more likely she will conceive and have a healthy baby. According to researchers from the Delaware Institute for Reproductive Medicine, women undergoing fertility treatment could improve their chances by skewing the diet balance toward more protein.

Boost protein, boost fertility

The study, presented May 6 at the annual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, in New Orleans, tracked 120 women with ovulation disorders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Participants kept diet records for three days before the procedure.

Among the 48 women who got at least 25 percent of their daily calories from protein, 67 percent became pregnant. Only 32 percent of the 72 women who had less protein in their diets were successful. What’s more, women who ate the fewest carbohydrates—less than 40 percent of calories—had had the highest pregnancy rate: 80 percent.

Mediterranean fertility

Other research supports the notion that a well-balanced, nutritious diet improves fertility. In 2008 Harvard researchers published “Fertility Diet,” the first comprehensive review of diet and fertility based on an eight-year study of more than 18,000 nurses. They found that women who got on average 25 per cent of their calories from monounsaturated fat (a Mediterranean diet fat profile) were three times more likely to conceive compared to the bottom third, who got on average nine per cent of their calories from it.

Find your ideal body weight

The recommendations resulting from studies linking food and fertility are similar: eat a heart healthy diet with more fruit and vegetables, more healthy fats, less meat and low-to-no refined carbohydrates. In fact, good food and fertility matter for men, as well as women. In addition to cutting down on alcohol and caffeine, boosting essential vitamins, minerals and nutrients are just as important for healthy sperm as they are for healthy ovulation.

One of the most significant factors within the control of couples that want to conceive is finding the ideal body weight. Being overweight can make it harder to get pregnant. Support a healthy diet with an exercise routine. If weight loss is necessary, a safe rate of just one or two pounds per week will avoid depleting the body of the nutrition it needs to start a family.

Source: U.S. News & World Report, The Telegraph, Infertilityguide.com, Babycenter, USA Today