Food and Health Communications Food Blog » Get the Nutrition Right Game

Food and Health Communications Food Blog » Get the Nutrition Right Game

Chewing Gum May Help People Lose Weight

Study finds chewing gum can help lower calorie intake and increase energy expenditure

WHAT: New research from University of Rhode Island presented at The Obesity Society's 2009 Annual Scientific Meeting shows the role of chewing sugar-free gum, such as Wrigley's Extra®, in helping to reduce calorie intake at lunchi and increase energy expenditure among individuals in a laboratory setting.ii Primary outcomes include:

•After subjects chewed gum in the morning, their calorie intake at lunch was decreased by 68 calories.

◦Despite consuming fewer calories at lunch, participants did not report greater hunger and did not compensate by increasing their calorie intake later in the day.

◦When participants chewed gum, they reported feeling less hungry, as compared to when they did not chew gum.

•When subjects chewed gum with a relaxed, natural pace before and after eating, their energy expenditure increased.

◦When participants chewed gum before eating, their energy expenditure was higher by approximately 5%, as compared to when they did not chew gum.

◦When participants chewed gum after eating, their energy expenditure was also higher by approximately 5%, as compared to when they did not chew gum.

◦Furthermore, with gum chewing, subjects reported reduced weariness and less perceived effort to do things, as compared to when they did not chew gum.


Overall, this study demonstrates the effects of chewing sugar-free gum on meal intake and energy expenditure, such that over a half-day about 62 kilocalories could be 'saved' by a total of one hour of relaxed gum chewing compared to not chewing gum. It also contributes to a growing body of evidence in these two areas. Three previous studies have reported that chewing gum before snacking can help reduce hunger, diminish cravings and decrease snack intake.iii,iv,v And, nutritionists report that even small changes in caloric intake can have a significant impact in the long term. In addition, a previous study has demonstrated increased energy expenditure when chewing gum.vi

A research summary with additional information on methodology is available upon request.

WHO: Kathleen J. Melanson, Ph.D., R.D., Associate Professor of Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of Rhode Island, led the research study and is available for interviews to discuss the potential role of chewing gum on appetite control, meal intake and calorie expenditure.

Gilbert Leveille, Ph.D., Executive Director, Wrigley Science Institute™, will also be available to discuss study findings and research on the Benefits of Chewing™ gum related to weight management and other areas including oral health, stress relief, and focus, alertness and concentration.

WHEN: Research will be presented at The Obesity Society's 2009 Annual Scientific Meeting from noon—1:00 p.m. EST and 5:30—6:30 p.m. EST on Monday, October 26 and Tuesday, October 27; Washington Marriott Wardman Park, Washington, D.C.


###
WRIGLEY SCIENCE INSTITUTE™:
Wrigley is committed to advancing and sharing scientific research that explores the benefits of chewing gum. The Wrigley Science Institute works with independent researchers at leading institutions around the world to learn more about the potential health and wellness benefits of chewing gum. The current work of the Wrigley Science Institute is focused on exploring the impact of chewing gum in four key scientific areas: oral health; stress relief; focus, alertness and concentration; and weight management. More information may be found at www.wrigley.com.

The study was supported by an unrestricted research grant from the Wrigley Science Institute™ presented during the 2007 Annual Meeting of The Obesity Society.

© 2009 Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company. All Rights Reserved. Extra, Benefits of Chewing and Wrigley Science Institute are registered trademarks of the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company.

i Kathleen J. Melanson, Kaitlyn E. Reti, and Daniel L. Kresge. Impact of chewing gum on appetite, meal intake, and mood under controlled conditions. Obesity 2009. Washington, D.C. October 2009.

ii Daniel L. Kresge, Kaitlyn E. Reti and Kathleen J. Melanson. Relationships between gum chewing, energy expenditure and RQ before and after controlled breakfasts. Obesity 2009. Washington, D.C. October 2009.

iii Hetherington MM, Boyland E. "Short term effects of chewing gum on snack intake and appetite." Appetite. 2007; 48(3):397-401.

iv Hetherington MM, Regan MF. "Effect of chewing gum on short-term appetite control and reduced snack intake in moderately restrained eaters." Obesity. 2007; 15: 510-P.

v Paula J. Geiselman, Corby Martin, Sandra Coulon, Donna Ryan, and Megan Apperson. Effects of chewing gum on specific macronutrient and total caloric intake in an afternoon snack. FASEB J. 2009 23:101.3.

vi Levine J, Baukol P, Pavlidis I. "The energy expended in chewing gum." New England Journal of Medicine. 1999; l 341(27): 2100.

You Don't Need Extra Protein to Build Muscle

I've been working with folks trying to lose weight (but not muscle) for most of my dietetic career. And this includes a lot of gym rats who continue to insist that protein is king and post workout protein shakes are the magic bullet.

Here's another research study supporting my philosophy of protein with every meal, but not more than your palm (or a deck of cards) and that most people DON'T need protein shakes/supplements.




Moderate amounts of protein per meal found best for building muscle
Study: 1 ounce per meal is muscle synthesis improvement 'ceiling'

Contact: Jim Kelly
jpkelly@utmb.edu
409-772-8791
University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston

GALVESTON, Texas — For thousands of years, people have believed that eating large amounts of protein made it easier to build bigger, stronger muscles. Take Milo of Croton, the winner of five consecutive Olympic wrestling championships in the sixth century BC: If ancient writers are to be believed, he built his crushing strength in part by consuming 20 pounds of meat every day.

No modern athlete would go to such extremes, but Milo's legacy survives in the high-protein diets of bodybuilders and the meat-heavy training tables of today's college football teams. A recent study by University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston metabolism researchers, however, provides evidence that strongly contradicts this ancient tradition. It also suggests practical ways to both improve normal American eating patterns and reduce muscle loss in the elderly.

The study's results, obtained by measuring muscle synthesis rates in volunteers who consumed different amounts of lean beef, show that only about the first 30 grams (just over one ounce) of dietary protein consumed in a meal actually produce muscle.

"We knew from previous work that consuming 30 grams of protein — or the equivalent of approximately 4 ounces of chicken, fish, dairy, soy, or, in this case, lean beef — increased the rate of muscle protein synthesis by 50 percent in young and older adults," said associate professor Douglas Paddon-Jones, senior author of a paper on the study published in the September issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. "We asked if 4 ounces of beef gives you a 50 percent increase, would 12 ounces, containing 90 grams of protein, give you a further increase?"

The UTMB researchers tested this possibility by feeding 17 young and 17 elderly volunteers identical 4- or 12-ounce portions of lean beef. Using blood samples and thigh muscle biopsies, they then determined the subjects' muscle protein synthesis rates following each of the meals.

"In young and old adults, we saw that 12 ounces gave exactly the same increase in muscle protein synthesis as 4 ounces," Paddon-Jones says. "This suggests that at around 30 grams of protein per meal, maybe a little less, muscle protein synthesis hits an upper ceiling. I think this has a lot of application for how we design meals and make menu recommendations for both young and older adults."

The results of the study, Paddon-Jones points out, seem to show that a more effective pattern of protein consumption is likely to differ dramatically from most Americans' daily eating habits.

"Usually, we eat very little protein at breakfast, eat a bit more at lunch and then consume a large amount at night. When was the last time you had just 4 ounces of anything during dinner at a restaurant?" Paddon-Jones said. "So we're not taking enough protein on board for efficient muscle-building during the day, and at night we're taking in more than we can use. Most of the excess is oxidized and could end up as glucose or fat."

A more efficient eating strategy for making muscle and controlling total caloric intake would be to shift some of extra protein consumed at dinner to lunch and breakfast.

"You don't have to eat massive amounts of protein to maximize muscle synthesis, you just have to be a little more clever with how you apportion it," Paddon-Jones said. "For breakfast consider including additional high quality proteins. Throw in an egg, a glass of milk, yogurt or add a handful of nuts to get to 30 grams of protein, do something similar to get to 30 for lunch, and then eat a smaller amount of protein for dinner. Do this, and over the course of the day you likely spend much more time synthesizing muscle protein."

###

Other authors of the paper ("A Moderate Serving of High-Quality Protein Maximally Stimulates Skeletal Muscle Protein Synthesis in Young and Elderly Subjects") include postdoctoral fellow T. Brock Symons, associate professor Melinda Sheffield Moore and University of Arkansas professor Robert R. Wolfe. The study was supported by funding from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association Checkoff Program and UTMB's National Institutes of Health Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center.

********************************

Here is the actual article in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association:
A Moderate Serving of High-Quality Protein Maximally Stimulates Skeletal Muscle Protein Synthesis in Young and Elderly Subjects

Are Artificial Sweeteners Really That Bad for You?

Are Artificial Sweeteners Really That Bad for You?

By Claire Suddath Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2009 on Time.com

Too much sugar will make you fat, but too much artificial sweetener will ... do what exactly? Kill you? Make you thinner? Or have absolutely no effect at all? This week marks the 40th anniversary of the Food and Drug Administration's decision to ban cyclamate, the first artificial sweetener prohibited in the U.S., and yet scientists still haven't reached a consensus about how safe (or harmful) artificial sweeteners may be. Shouldn't we have figured this out by now?

The first artificial sweetener, saccharin, was discovered in 1879 when Constantin Fahlberg, a Johns Hopkins University scientist working on coal-tar derivatives, noticed a substance on his hands and arms that tasted sweet. No one knows why Fahlberg decided to lick an unknown substance off his body, but it's a good thing he did. Despite an early attempt to ban the substance in 1911 — skeptical scientists said it was an "adulterant" that changed the makeup of food — saccharin grew in popularity, and was used to sweeten foods during sugar rationings in World Wars I and II. Though it is about 300 times sweeter than sugar and has zero calories, saccharin leaves an unpleasant metallic aftertaste. So when cyclamate came on the market in 1951, food and beverage companies jumped at the chance to sweeten their products with something that tasted more natural. By 1968, Americans were consuming more than 17 million pounds of the calorie-free substance a year in snack foods, canned fruit and soft drinks like Tab and Diet Pepsi.

But in the late 1960s, studies began linking cyclamate to cancer. One noted that chicken embryos injected with the chemical developed extreme deformities, leading scientists to wonder if unborn humans could be similarly damaged by their cola-drinking mothers. Another study linked the sweetener to malignant bladder tumors in rats. Because a 1958 congressional amendment required the FDA to ban any food additive shown to cause cancer in humans or animals, on Oct. 18, 1969, the government ordered cyclamate removed from all food products.

Saccharin became mired in controversy in 1977, when a study indicated that the substance might contribute to cancer in rats. An FDA move to ban the chemical failed, though products containing saccharin were required to carry warning labels. In 2000, the chemical was officially removed from the Federal Government's list of suspected carcinogens.
(Read TIME's 1974 article on cyclamate and saccharin.)

In 1981, the synthetic compound aspartame was approved for use, and it capitalized on saccharin's bad publicity by becoming the leading additive in diet colas. In 1995 and 1996, misinformation about aspartame that linked the chemical to everything from multiple sclerosis to Gulf War syndrome was widely disseminated on the Internet. While aspartame does adversely effect some people — including those who are unable to metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine — it has been tested more than 200 times, and each test has confirmed that your Diet Coke is safe to drink. Nor have any health risks been detected in more than 100 clinical tests of sucralose, a chemically altered sugar molecule found in food, drinks, chewing gum and Splenda.

The fear-mongering and misinformation plaguing the faux-sweetener market seems to be rooted in a common misconception. No evidence indicates that sweeteners cause obesity; people with weight problems simply tend to eat more of it. While recent studies have suggested a possible link between artificial sweeteners and obesity, a direct link between additives and weight gain has yet to be found. The general consensus in the scientific community is that saccharin, aspartame and sucralose are harmless when consumed in moderation. And while cyclamate is still banned in the U.S., many other countries still allow it; it can even be found in the Canadian version of Sweet'n Low. Low-calorie additives won't make you thinner or curb your appetite. But they help unsweetened food taste better without harming you. And that's sweet enough.

Breakfast Cereal Recommendations from RealSimple.com

This article showed up on Yahoo.com this morning and, as always, I checked out the "who" that is touting this "best" list. Real Simple is a Time Inc. magazine that started in 2000, has expanded to a TV show on TLC and involves Registered Dietitians in food and health articles. Glancing through their offerings I can see how this could be another resource for folks looking for information, recipies and great home ideas to improve eating choices.

The Best Breakfast Cereals

The Classics

Many breakfast-cereal concoctions come and go (R.I.P., Donkey Kong Crunch; adios, Urkel-O's). Then there are the beloved stalwarts-raisin bran, corn flakes, crispy rice-that will be breakfast staples forever. But which brands in these traditional categories are best? Real Simple testers ate their way through 42 boxes to find out. (Note: All cereals tested in this story were free of high-fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils.)

The Best O's: Cheerios

The pure oaty flavor and the hearty crunch of these whole-grain rings, which contain just one gram of sugar per serving, easily won over testers. “No wonder my toddler can’t get enough of them,” one enthused.

To buy: $4 for 14 ounces.

The Best Crispy Rice: Erewhon Organic Original Crispy Brown Rice

Made with brown rice (a nice twist on the traditional white), these delicate puffs have “a pleasing nutty flavor,” a staffer raved. “Topped with strawberries, they would make a great light breakfast.”

To buy: $4 for 10 ounces.

The Best Shredded Oats: Life

Mikey liked it back in the 1970s, and Real Simple testers feel the same way today. The thin oat squares strike a tasty balance of salty and sweet.

To buy: $4 for 15 ounces.

The Best Raisin Bran: Cascadian Farm Organic Raisin Bran

“The plump, juicy raisins aren’t overwhelmed by the number of flakes,” said a fan. “Plus, the fruit is free of that awful coating of sugar so many companies use.”

To buy: $4 for 14 ounces.

The Best Corn Flakes: Trader Joe’s Organic Corn Flakes

“These large, sturdy flakes hold their shape, have a strong corn flavor even when drowned in milk, and don’t develop a slimy film like some other versions,” said one appreciative tester.

To buy: $2.50 for 12 ounces.

The Best Frosted Wheat: Three Sisters Sweet Wheat

These bites have a dusting of icing on one side that adds a touch of sweetness to the milk. Bonus: The resealable plastic bag cuts down on wasteful packaging.

To buy: $3.40 for 15.5 ounces, Whole Foods Market.


The Best High-Fiber, Low-Fat

Cereals touted for their nutritional profile can’t always make the same claim for taste. Real Simple staffers sampled 77 options―all containing at least 3 grams of fiber, no more than 10 grams of sugar, and less than 2 grams of fat, as recommended by Marilyn Tanner-Blasiar, a registered dietitian and an American Dietetic Association spokesperson. Here are the breakfast champions.

The Best High Fiber: Kashi Go Lean

A medley of bran twigs, honey whole-grain puffs, and mini soy graham crackers, this won praise for being hearty and delicious. One of the healthiest of all the winners, it packs 13 grams of protein and 10 grams of fiber into a single serving.

To buy: $4 for 14.1 ounces.

The Best Shredded Wheat: Kashi Autumn Wheat

Passionate shredded-wheat devotees raved about how the squares “absorb the milk just enough, without soaking it up like a sponge.” Said one of them, “It’s tightly woven and yet has a lovely, airy crunch.”

To buy: $4.20 for 17.5 ounces.

The Best Crispy Whole Grain: Multi-Bran Chex

Molasses perks up the flavors of corn, wheat, and rice in these woven brown crisps. “Forget toast in the morning. This reminds me of my favorite wheat bread, but with a more robust, nutty flavor,” a panelist said.

To buy: $3.30 for 14 ounces.

The Best Whole Wheat Flakes: Organic Weetabix Crispy Flakes

This flake version of a popular English cereal has a pleasant, grainy texture and a slight sweetness, thanks to cane juice and a touch of sea salt.

To buy: $4.50 for 12 ounces.

The Best High-Fiber Twigs: Fiber One Original

Many twigs are thin and brittle, said a taster. “This sturdy example stands up well to milk and fruit.” For an afternoon snack, try the cereal solo or sprinkled on yogurt. Half a cup contains a whopping 14 grams of fiber.

To buy: $4.20 for 16.2 ounces.

The Best Flax: Nature’s Path Organic Flax Plus Multibran

It’s easy to get more heart-healthy omega-3s in your diet with these golden flakes. “They have a cute, cuplike shape that holds the milk,” commented a fan.

To buy: $4.60 for 13.25 ounces.

The Best Kids'

Remember when you loved visiting Susie Schumacher’s house because her mom bought “sugar” cereal? It’s still a special treat today. A panel of 32 elementary-school testers munched their way through 93 contenders, none exceeding 15 grams of sugar (the limit for registered dietitian Tanner-Blasiar). These picks hit the sweet spot.

The Best Puffs: EnviroKidz Organic Gorilla Munch

“Super crunchy!” one youngster said of this gluten-free corn cereal with 8 grams of sugar (the lowest per serving of the bunch). “I’d eat them during recess as a snack,” another noted.

To buy: $4.60 for 10 ounces.

The Best Cinnamon Squares: Total Cinnamon Crunch

The “fresh cinnamon-stick taste” of these small, ultra-crispy squares enticed many panelists to go back for seconds.

To buy: $3.90 for 15.4 ounces.

The Best Marshmallow: Three Sisters Marshmallow Oaties

Testers liked that the white, pink, and purple marshmallows in this addictive cereal didn’t dissolve. “They keep their shape until the very end,” one noted.

To buy: $3.40 for 12.5 ounces, Whole Foods Market.

The Best Honey-Nut O's: Honey Nut Cheerios

“Drinking the flavored milk is the best part,” one tester proclaimed after sampling this honey-and-almond classic made with whole-grain oats.

To buy: $3.80 for 12.25 ounces.

The Best Fruity: Apple Jacks

Red flecks of dried apple cover these frosty-hued O’s. Made of corn, wheat, and oats, this cereal gets extra sweetness from apple juice and cinnamon.

To buy: $3.80 for 12.2 ounces.

The Best Cocoa: Erewhon Organic Cocoa Crispy Brown Rice

“I could eat these all day,” said one 10-year-old panelist of the airy rice pebbles. “They stay crisp in the milk but seem to melt in your mouth. And they taste like hot chocolate.” (For a fourth grader, that’s a good thing.)

To buy: $4 for 10.5 ounces.

Food Safety?

Dangerous foods list includes leafy greens, eggs, tuna

By Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writer
On Tuesday October 6, 2009, 2:07 pm EDT

Leafy greens -- including lettuce and spinach -- top the list of the 10 riskiest foods, according to a study from a nutrition advocacy group released Tuesday.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest listed the following foods, in descending order, as the most risky in terms of outbreaks: leafy greens, eggs, tuna, oysters, potatoes, cheese, ice cream, tomatoes, sprouts and berries.

The scientists rated these foods, all of them regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, by the number of outbreaks associated with them since 1990, and also provided the number of recorded illnesses.

The severity of the illnesses ranged from minor stomach aches to death, the center said. With leafy greens such as lettuce, the top cause of illness were pathogens like E. coli, Norovirus and Salmonella in foods that were not properly washed.

Over the past 20 years, leafy greens caused 363 outbreaks, resulting in 13,568 reported illnesses, the center said. That's compared to berries, No. 10 on the list, which were associated with 25 outbreaks totaling 3,397 reported illnesses.

"Leafy greens are a healthy home run, but unfortunately they're associated with food-borne illness," said Sarah Klein, a staff lawyer with the center who helped prepared the study.

In all, the Top 10 resulted in more than 1,500 outbreaks, totaling nearly 50,000 reported illnesses, according to the center, which added that most food-related illnesses don't get treated or reported, so the real total is likely much larger.

"Millions of consumers are being made ill, hundreds of thousands hospitalized and thousands are dying each year from preventable foodborne illnesses," the study said. "Unfortunately, the FDA is saddled with outdated laws, and lacks the authority, tools and resources to fight unsafe food."

Food producers, including the Western Growers Association, released statements criticizing the report.

"Farmers are consumers, too," the association said, in a release from spokesman Paul Simonds. "They eat the fresh produce they grow as do the members of their families, and have invested millions of dollars enhancing food safety practices in the last few years. Scaring people away from eating some of the healthiest foods on the planet, like fresh produce, does not serve consumers."

Salmonella was also a chief culprit in egg, cheese and tomato-related illnesses, the study said, in cases when eggs are undercooked and when cheese is not processed properly.

Salmonella can be difficult to remove from raw tomatoes without cooking, according to the study.
The study also associated Salmonella and E. coli with potatoes. Klein said this generally happens when cold-prepared potato items, such as potato salad, are mixed with other contaminated ingredients.

Unrefrigerated fresh tuna deteriorates quickly, the study said, releasing harmful toxins, and canned tuna gets dragged into the picture because of mixed-in ingredients such as mayonnaise. Improperly washed oysters are at risk of Norovirus.

Rich Ruais, executive director of the Blue Water Fisherman Association and the American Blue Fin Tuna Association in Salem, N.H., disagreed with the study's "bad rap" on tuna.

"Tuna? I beg to differ," he said. "Tuna is one of the healthiest foods on the Earth. It's life sustaining; it's life prolonging."

Ruais said the tuna-based diet of Japanese citizens plays a big part in their high average longevity. He also said the FDA strictly mandates that tuna is gutted and stuffed with ice immediately after it's caught by commercial fisherman, and submerged in slush once it gets to shore, to prevent risk of pathogens.

More surprisingly, bacteria can also survive in ice cream, primarily from the Salmonella contamination of eggs, an important ingredient that is sometimes undercooked, the study said. Much of the study's blame goes to a 1994 outbreak that sickened thousands of ice cream lovers in 41 states.

The National Milk Producers Federation released a statement criticizing the report as "based on outdated information."

"Cheese and ice cream products are among the safest, most stringently regulated foods in this country," said the federation, in its release. "The cheese examples in this report mostly concern consumption of raw milk products, which neither [the] FDA nor the dairy industry recommends. The ice cream example is 15 years old and was an isolated incident."
--------------------------

This article can raise a few red flags for any consumer, but also has some "Chicken Little running around screaming about a falling sky" in it. And some possible misunderstanding if someone only looks at the list itself and not at the true risk factors associated with food borne illnesses.

Wash your fruits & vegetables (as I stated in an earlier blog post a few years ago)!!!

Potatoes are not the dangerous food - it's the recipes used for potato salad and then improper refrigeration that causes increased risk food borne illnesses.

For proper food handling and safety, check out "Fight BAC" (from the Partnership for Food Safety Education).