The Wellness Wheel: Eat. (adapted)

In early January we released our Wellness Wheel and in mid-January, I devoted a few days of the blog to a more in-depth look at our Wellness Wheel to explore each section of the wheel and how it relates to our Move.Eat.Be. program.

On Monday, the USDA announced the newest Dietary Guidelines and I've devoted some time to reading the (ugh) 112-page document. Today, I explored the recommendations about eating more seafood. And, I very much enjoyed the article in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal by Bill Tomson and Ilan Brat and the quote included they therein from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association which said, "A recommendation to add fish to your diet doesn't mean you should cut back on leaf beef." It made me snicker. I'm pretty sure if I took the time to dig back in the historical records to find when eating more chicken became all the rage somebody from some beef association likely said something very similar. If they had their way, we'd be eating beef for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Getting to the point... we're editing our Wellness Wheel. I realized two things: One - We had a category for "lean meat" which really was meant to include seafood. Two - I don't want to add to the confusion created by words like lean, light, low-fat, etc. So what was previously named our "lean meat" category will now be called "seafood and meat."

The renaming, of course, raises the question about what kinds of meat, and how much, you should include in your diet. We believe it is best to discover what works best for you by awakening your body and paying attention to how you feel. Some people will feel better eating no seafood or meat. Some people are better off sticking to mostly seafood or chicken. Some people thrive on red meat. And others, still, feel their best with all types of "seafood and meat" in their diet. Taking some time to discover what works best for you is the secret to sustainable, life-long wellness.

Until you discover your own personal approach plan to Eat. seafood and meat, here are some guidelines:

• Organic, sustainably-raised and natural is always best
• Consume smaller portions of all seafoods and meats (a serving is about the size of your computer mouse)
• Choose minimally processed versions (as whole and as close as you can get to nature). Generally speaking, this means:
• Little to no ground beef, sausages, hot dogs (unless you know and trust the producer)
• No fish sticks or chicken nuggets (unless you make them yourself from whole fish or chicken)
• No "meat" in cans or any kind of "pressed-meat patties"
• No cultured, or in vitro, meat

Why? All too often, we are told to reduce our calorie intake by switching to "lean meat" or "low-fat dairy" and other such terms. This advice is included throughout the USDA's new dietary guidelines. Unfortunately, when a food manufacturer takes a natural fruit, vegetable, grain, dairy or meat and processes it to force it into a product that can be called "lean" or "low" the resulting food-like product  does far more harm to our health. We are much better off eating appropriate portions of the original, non-processed food even if it is the "full fat" version. Hence the new Eat. category of "seafood and meat." Choose well. Eat. (real). 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010

Today, the USDA and the DHHS released the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. The release was accompanied by an 112-page document outlining the new advice for what we should eat. This document was summarized by two over-arching concepts:

• Maintain a calorie balance over time to achieve and sustain a healthy weight
• Focus on consuming nutrient-dense foods and beverages

Relatively impressive, though benign, advice. Both of those statements are true and are good rules-of-thumb. I contend we have a significant information gap and many people need a great deal of (honest) education to understand what that means (which is what we at Cybercise work on each and every day). 

And, as with most things, the devil is in the details. At this writing, I haven't read all 112 pages though I promise I will. I did a quick skim though and here is my list of pros and cons from the recommendations in the report:

• Pros
• Increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviors
• Recognized calorie needs are different in different stages of life
• Reduce sodium intake
• Keep trans fatty acid consumption as low as possible
• Increase vegetable and fruit intake
• Increase whole grain intake
• Account for all foods and beverages consumed
• Cons
• Increased intake of fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products (These are highly processed foods and are suspect, at best, as your most healthful choice).
• Only reduced sodium intake to 2,300 mg/day and then goes on to say 1,500 mg/day recommendations apply to 50% of the population (Huh? Why even go there. Make it 1,500 a day and be done. Who is beholden to the salt lobby?).
• Suggests an increase in fiber, calcium and Vitamin D, which is good, though sets the stage for more "Now With Added (insert chemical food additive name here)" on package labels. 
• Suggests we reduce trans fatty acids though doesn't go so far as to eliminate the loophole in current labeling regulations that allow each and every product you consume to have less than .49 grams per serving. (Hello? If you want us to reduce our consumption, get it out of our food.)

Credit where credit is due, this is a pretty good report. While I don't really like the way we create policy in this country (little baby steps at a time so we don't alienate too many special interests), I understand that moving the behemoth of our Government sometimes takes time and always takes compromise. 

Stay tuned for more after I devote the time to read the entire report. Now, if we can implement The Real Food label and eliminate GMO/GE foods. "You may say I'm a dreamer..."

Let Our Children Teach Us

The simplest ideas are always the best. The greatest thing about this new food label is it uses knowledge we already have and strategies we are taught in pre-school:

• Red = Stop
• Yellow = Slow
• Green = Go

The first part of the implementation could be the food in our schools. Each choice along the cafeteria line would be labeled like this:

Or this:

This system is so easy it cannot fail. It does not require special training and is so intuitive the numbers inside of the boxes almost don't matter. By implementing this in our schools, we could make great strides to help our children make good food choices and teach them to be aware of what they are eating. The kids would take the strategy home and tell their parents they want to "Eat Green." The points reward system could be used for special school-related activities.... extra recess, a special healthy luncheon with a local sports star, an awards ceremony at the end of the year to acknowledge the best eaters. 

Making a difference isn't hard. We only need someone brave enough to take the first step. 

Label. The Newest Generation.

The design keeps improving! In case you haven't been following along, we're on a quest to design a new front of package label for our food. The whole thing started with the ridiculous commercial on TV that says one serving of Manwich has a full serving of vegetables. Then talk started about how to rebrand High Fructose Corn Syrup so we wouldn't be aware of what is in our food. The idea really blossomed at HealthCampDC 2010 a few weeks ago with some terrific thought leaders in health and wellness. Then a trip to the United Kingdom further refined the idea (am I the only one who loves going to grocery stores in other countries???).

Today, I'm happy to unveil the latest generation of our front of package food label!

Front of Package Food Label © 2010 Cybercise®

Now, we have this lovely little color-coded bar which helps consumers choose food based on an easy system of red, yellow and green. The idea is simple... choose products with mostly green and avoid products with mostly yellow and red. It is universal. It is easy to understand. It is clear.

What a revolution! The simplest ideas are always the best.

Product Nutrition Search

When I seek nutrition information on a product, the best way is a simple text entry box in which to type the product name. Perhaps this method doesn't work for some people so, in an attempt to make things easier, some websites have created other ways to get nutrition information.

As promised in yesterday's Manwich update, I thought we'd take a peek at the ConAgra Product Nutrition Search to see how it works. Here is a screen shot from their website. 
To find nutrition information you have two choices: one-click search and advanced search. One-click sounds easy and look they have nifty sub-categories to help consumers: fat free, low fat, good source of protein, low cholesterol, sodium controlled, good source of fiber. Let's take a look, shall we?

Under the fat free category, the first results are: Egg Beaters, PAM (such a tasty meal choice), La Choy bamboo shoots. Hmmmmm. Is this helpful? Would a consumer, in an attempt to make more healthful food choices go to this website, find something fat free and then go and buy it?

I contend this is exactly what ConAgra is hoping for and spent quite a tidy sum of money on website design for. Does this tool actually help people make better food choices? If I was told to eat a fat free diet, would I use this tool to make my shopping list? Perhaps if I was a consumer without an good understanding of nutrition. Perhaps the first thing on the list should be actual, whole, real foods (like vegetables) and a way to educate consumers about those food choices. And, why in the world is PAM on this list? It isn't food.

I was curious about the nutrition information for Hunt's Basil, Garlic and Oregano sauce so I clicked on the little "i"to dig a bit deeper.

When you click the "i" you are rewarded with a pop-up box of the product label as shown on the left.
What is most interesting about this label? It does not show what is actually in the can. I guess the website designers thought an ingredient list would be too much information. Unless of course, someone didn't want "high fructose corn syrup" to appear in print on a website. Or the spurious term "spices" which can mean a whole bunch of things you really don't want to consume.

I am left curious and would love your thoughts. Is this information helpful? Will it guide a consumer to make better food choices? Or, do you think it is a clever way to "help" consumers make a shopping list of ConAgra produced food based on somewhat questionable health claims?

Tomorrow? The advanced search. Stay tuned!

Salt. The New Evil.

The USDA's draft dietary guidelines include a reduction in salt intake. According to this article in the Los Angeles Times, Americans consume an average of 3,400 milligrams of salt on a daily basis. The new dietary guidelines recommend no more than 1,500 milligrams per day (the current guidelines published in 2005 says 2,300 milligrams).

While I agree we could all likely do with a little less salt in our diet, I fear the consequences of labeling salt the new evil. Let us simply recall what happened when we named fat evil in the 80s. A huge influx of low-fat food hit the grocery store shelves. Most of it fake food, almost none of it food for you. But we were sold a story that low-fat meant you could eat it and it wouldn't make you fat. And we bought it. By the billions and billions. And, obesity trends track right along with the influx of low-fat foods. If you want to read more about that coincidence, click here.

I promise you there are people sitting in conference rooms right now deciding on which "Low Salt" label will appear on the front of food boxes. I give it 30 days before we see such labels on grocery store shelves.

Our bodies need some salt. Don't believe me, believe The Mayo Clinic. Because the creation of our dietary guidelines is a political process (yes, I'm sorry, too) and because salt doesn't have a hugely powerful and wealthy lobby, we could very well end up in a place where salt is blacklisted. Worse yet, we'll end up with a whole new industry of fake salts which are marketed as "much better" for us (I would wager there are food manufacturers also sitting around in conference rooms making up new snazzy names for the "Anti-Salt" products they are about to create).

Don't get me wrong, I think we should all reduce the salt in our diet. The best way to do so? Stop eating processed foods. The vast majority of salt in the American diet comes from fake foods sold in boxes and at fast food places. If the new dietary guidelines came out and said "Processed Foods: Used Sparingly" I suspect the salt problem would take care of itself.