While I am definitely choosing healthier foods, which means more fruits, vegetable, lean meats, etc, I haven’t gone overboard on organic vs. canned or anything.  But this new product makes me want to…

THE CANDWICH

Like a cross between a Little Debbie and a cold Hot Pocket, but also in a can, the Candwich is the next batshit crazy convenience food hitting shelves. Although it’s targeting the pre-school, camping, and construction worker demographic, it seems more like a novelty or a military ration than something anyone would actually eat on a regular basis. The Candwich comes in three flavors: peanut butter and strawberry jam, peanut butter and grape jam, and, the most terrifying of all, BBQ Chicken.

The Mark One Foods website makes a claim that the Candwich would be good for camping, and, indeed, a German camping supply company at one point produced cheeseburgers in a can. An AV Club taste test described them as something you would “never want to relive, but that won’t stop me from telling every single person I know about it.” Although peanut butter and jelly seems like it might fare better from the in-a-can treatment than either the cheeseburger or the BBQ Chicken, it’s still likely that the Candwich is more an internet-meme-in-a-can than viable food source.

And, unfortunately, there is more: the yellow circle on the left side of the can says “Candy Surprise Inside.” Not clear whether the candy is in the sandwich itself or a bonus side item, but either way there should be no surprises in a sandwich in a can.

I get so frustrated sometimes, because it really is easy to avoid food that is bad for me.  All I have to do is read the label.  But like others, it’s easy for me to get pulled in by trigger words that make me think that this food will be just fine, and the label isn’t an important.  The label is ALWAYS important!

Flavored Yogurt – Brace yourself for culture shock. Plain yogurt naturally contains about 16 grams of sugar per cup. But if you eat flavored yogurt, you could be downing 15 or more additional grams of sugar, which is like shoveling in four extra teaspoonfuls.

What to eat instead: Choose plain, low-fat yogurt and stir in a teaspoon of honey, maple syrup, or all-fruit spread for a hint of sweetness. Or opt for fat-free Greek yogurt, which is lower in sugar than even regular plain yogurt but often has double the protein to keep you satisfied longer. Chobani and Fage are great brands.

Sugar-Free Cookies and Candy – Don’t fall for the no-sugar scam: When manufacturers remove the sweet stuff, they often add fat. One popular brand offers chocolate-chip cookies that each contain 160 calories and 9 grams of fat, so why not eat the real thing? You might save calories with sugar-free candy, but many contain sorbitol, which can cause bloating and diarrhea.

What to eat instead: Get your cookie fix with graham crackers, which have almost a teaspoon less sugar per serving than many other packaged cookies. Or find a 100-calorie snack pack of your favorite (try Keebler Fudge Shoppe Mini Fudge Stripes). Taking a trip to candy land? Grab a 60-calorie Tootsie Pop or a York Peppermint Pattie (140 calories and 2.5 grams of fat).  The Keebler Mini Fudge Stripes really are good!

Trail Mix – Store-bought versions of this hiking staple should take a hike. A 1-ounce handful of banana chips packs 10 grams of fat (they’re usually deep-fried), and yogurt-covered raisins are coated with partially hydrogenated palm kernel oil, which contains saturated and trans fats.

What to eat instead: Toss your own trail mix with nuts, dried fruit (raisins or chopped apricots), whole-grain cereal, mini pretzels, and a few chocolate chips. Limit your portion to one cup.  Read the labels on each item and write down the nutrition info so you know exactly what you are getting.

Veggie Chips – I love these… are they healthy?  Not so much… The rainbow-hued chips are no better than their potato counterparts. While both may boast a little vitamin A or C, your hips won’t know the difference: The salty snacks have about 150 calories and 9 or 10 grams of fat per handful. And that bag may contain plain old chips in disguise; sometimes manufacturers simply add food coloring to potato flour.

What to eat instead: Be sure your chips list a vegetable, not potato flour or corn flour, as the first ingredient ( like Terra Chips) and stick with just one portion. Or skip them in favor of baked tortilla chips: Pair a serving (about 12 chips) with 1/2 cup of salsa; you’ll quell your crunch craving and get a full serving of veggies with only 153 nearly fat-free calories.

Granola – Pancakes drowned in syrup, eggs swimming in hollandaise sauce — is there a healthy option on the brunch menu? Granola seems harmless, but it’s no breakfast of champions. One cup contains up to 560 calories and 28 grams of fat before you add milk.

What to eat instead: Reluctant to give up that sweet, nutty taste? Skip granola at restaurants, where you can’t control your portion. Enjoy it at home by mixing a quarter cup into a cup of low-cal, whole-grain cereal, such as All-Bran Complete Wheat Flakes, or sprinkle a tablespoon on oatmeal.

Ground Turkey – It seems like a no-brainer for burgers and lasagna, but ground turkey often includes fat and skin. A 3-ounce serving can contain 13 grams of fat — almost triple the amount in lean ground beef. With 40-plus percent of your day’s worth of cholesterol, regular ground chicken is no better.

What to eat instead: Look closely at labels. Extra-lean turkey is your best bet, with 1 gram of fat and no saturated fat per serving. Can’t find it? Buy at least 92 percent lean ground beef.

Is no one else hearing this; or do they hear and think, oh well?

Obesity Rates Jump in 28 States, Report Shows

By Amanda Gardner – Healthday Reporter Tue Jun 29, 7:08 pm ET

Americans are continuing to get fat, with obesity rates nudging upwards in 28 states over the past year, a new report shows.

“More than two-thirds of states now have adult obesity rates above 25 percent,” Jeff Levi, executive director of the Trust for America’s Health, said during a Tuesday news conference. “Back in 1991, not that long ago, not a single state had an obesity rate above 20 percent. There’s been a dramatic change in a relatively short period.”

“Obesity is one of the biggest public health crises in the country,” Levi added. “Rising rates of obesity over past decades is one of the major factors behind skyrocketing health care costs in the U.S., one-quarter of which are related to obesity.”

Mississippi weighed in for the sixth year in a row as the fattest state, with 33.8 percent of its adults obese, while Alabama and Tennessee tied for second (31.6 percent). The other top 10, also concentrated in the south, were West Virginia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Arkansas, South Carolina and Michigan tying with North Carolina for 10th place (29.4 percent).

Michigan was the only state in the top 11 not in the South, an anomaly perhaps explained by the state’s economy.

“Michigan certainly has been very hard hit, not just in the recent recession, but in the last decade or so,” Levi explained.

And, as the report also shows, income is a major driver of the obesity epidemic. More than 35 percent of adults bringing in less than $15,000 a year were obese, vs. only 24.5 percent in the over-$50,000 income bracket.

The healthiest states in terms of weight were congregated in the Northeast and West. Colorado (19.1 percent) came in first, followed by Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Vermont, Rhode Island, Utah, Montana and New Jersey. The District of Columbia was the only region to experience a decline in obesity rates.

In addition to geographic and economic differences, this year’s report also focused on racial and ethnic disparities, finding that blacks and Latinos bear the brunt of the obesity problem. Blacks and Latinos outweighed whites in at least 40 states plus D.C.

“Just over 30 percent of African-Americans and nearly 40 percent of Latino children are overweight versus 29 percent of white children,” Angela Glover Blackwell, founder and chief executive officer of PolicyLink, said during the teleconference.

As with adults, this puts them at higher risk of developing diabetes, high blood pressure and other risk factors for heart disease.

Racial/ethnic differences are closely intertwined with economic inequalities.

“The link between poverty, race and obesity is undeniable,” Glover Blackwell said. “For example, Mississippi, the poorest state in nation with an African-American population of more than 37 percent, has the highest obesity rate of any state and highest proportion of obese children.”

Poor and minority neighborhoods lack safe streets and parks in which to exercise and many are also so-called “food deserts.”

“Twenty-three million African-Americans do not have access to a grocery store within a mile of where they live, and only 8 percent of African-Americans live in a census tract with a grocery store,” Glover Blackwell said.

A poll on childhood obesity included in this year’s report found that 16.4 percent of children aged 10 to 17 are obese and 18.2 percent are overweight. Although the rates are troubling, the trend may have stabilized, the report said.

But the issue is at least getting on the radar, with 80 percent of Americans saying they believe “childhood obesity is a significant and growing challenge for the country.”

Some glimmers of hope have also appeared on the horizon, including “three major developments at the federal level,” Dr. James Marks, senior vice president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said during the teleconference. “This includes First Lady Michelle Obama’s ‘Let’s Move’ program; health care legislation that includes support for obesity-related projects; and many states and communities have mandated nutritional standards for school meals and snacks as well as foods sold in schools.”

“In the last few years, promising programs and policies have increased exponentially, but our response as a nation has yet to fully match magnitude of problem,” Levi said.

The report was co-authored by the Trust for America’s Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

In the past couple of months I have written blogged research items showing:

•  More people than ever are obese
• The U.S. Military is worried about childhood obesity impacting future recruitment efforts
• The importance of First Lady Michelle Obama’s childhood obesity campaign
• The effect of sodium in diet

So today I get an email from a friend sharing that a friend of hers had posted an item on Facebook indicating how amused she was that her 20 month old child was able to eat a whole McDonald’s “Big and Tasty with Cheese”.

And we wonder where childhood starts?

Let’s take a look at this from a nutrition standpoint.  This one item (discounting the probability that the child ate fries and had a soda), according to McDonald’s own website and the USDA RDA for children that age:

Will this one meal probably hurt the kid?  No.  But how do we start sending the message that the food we eat needs to be healthier than this?

40%

According to the Centers for Disease Control that is the percentage of Americans who get no exercise at all.  The same survey found that about 68% of men and 53% of women are overweight.

The diet industry is raking in billions of dollars per year, and the number keep going up.  Why isn’t anyone pointing this out?  How can people believe that the diet industry is interested in helping us really change?  That would put them out of business!  They count on us developing a yo-yo diet mentality and physiology with an almost Pavlovian response.  I can practically hear them saying, “Watch…I can make them fall for it time and time again!”

As long as we keep believing there is an easier way to lose weight, we will keep falling for it time and time again.  Insanity is repeating the same act and expecting different results.  There is only one way to acheive lasting weight loss, and everybody hates to hear it.  You have to eat less and exercise more.

Clearly the statistics above say it all about exercise, but what about eating less?

Food portions weren’t always so massive. Back in the 1950s, McDonald’s offered just one size of French fries containing 210 calories.  That is now the small size, definitely not the Super Size.  7-Eleven offers  Double Gulp, a 64-ounce soda (nearly 800 calories).  That’s a 1/2 gallon of soda!

Look how big cup holders in automobiles have gotten if you want to see how big our beverage consumption has become.

Studies show that muffin tins, restaurant dinner plates and pizza pans are growing too. Even cookbooks suggest larger portion sizes than in the past: In a 1960s version of “The Joy of Cooking,” a brownie recipe was considered to serve 30 but now the exact same recipe serves only 16 brownies!

We have become accustomed to huge portions of everything and all-you-can-eat buffets and Super Sizes.  It’s no wonder so many people are obese.

America’s Best & Worst “Health” Drinks

 By David Zinczenko, with Matt Goulding – Posted on Mon, May 24, 2010, 12:01 pm PDT

Whoever invented bottled water was a genius. Think about it: They took a widely available and nearly free commodity, packaged it nice and pretty, and sold it for hundreds of times more than what the public version costs. And how did they do it? Savvy marketing. Water bottle labels evoke images of freshness and purity that you just don’t get from a running tap. Don’t be fooled, though. About a quarter of bottled water actually comes from municipal sources.

When it comes to your health, bottled water is a fine choice. Water that meets minimum safety standards is good for you, regardless of the source. But the rest of the beverages in the supermarket that boast equally idyllic sounding health benefits might not be. Over the past three years, the Eat This, Not That! book series has exposed hundreds of food frauds. And now, our latest book, Drink This, Not That!, does the same for beverages.

What I learned, above all: What we drink is making us fat. We’re consuming at least a quarter of our daily calories in liquid form–more than 450 calories a day–and that’s a major factor in our nation’s obesity epidemic. Watching what you drink is just as important, if not more so, than watching what you eat, especially if you’re trying to shed belly fat. The trick, as always, is to distinguish between healthful drinks, and healthful sounding drinks. Here, I’ve listed the 6 worst “health” drinks in America. Steer clear of these bloating beverages and drink their healthiest alternatives instead. You can lose up to two pounds a week!

Worst Water
Snapple Agave Melon Antioxidant Water (1 bottle, 20 fl oz)
150 calories
0 g fat
33 g sugars (8 teaspoons of the stuff!)

Sugar Equivalent: 2 Good Humor Chocolate Éclair Bars

While “Worst Water” may sound like an oxymoron, the devious minds in the bottled beverage industry have even found a way to besmirch the sterling reputation of the world’s most essential compound. Sure, you may get a few extra vitamins, but ultimately, you’re paying a premium price for gussied-up sugar water. Next time you buy a bottle of water, check the recipe: You want two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen, and very little else.

Drink This Instead!
Smartwater
0 calories
0 g sugars

Worst Bottled Tea
SoBe Green Tea (1 bottle, 20 fl oz)
240 calories
0 g fat
61 g sugars (15 teaspoons of the stuff!)

Sugar Equivalent: 4 slices Sara Lee Cherry Pie

Leave it to SoBe to take an otherwise healthy bottle of tea and inject it with enough sugar to turn it into dessert. The Pepsi-owned company’s flagship line, composed of 11 flavors with names like “Nirvana” and “Cranberry Grapefruit Elixir” is marketed to give consumers the impression that it can cleanse the body, mind, and spirit. Don’t be fooled. Just like this bottle of green tea, all of these beverages are made with two primary ingredients: water and sugar.

Drink This Instead!
Honest Tea Green Dragon Tea (1 bottle, 16 fl oz)
60 calories
0 g fat
16 g sugars

Worst Meal Replacement Drink
Right Size Skini Vanilli (14 fl oz bottle)
263 calories
5.5 g fat (2.5 g saturated)
30 g sugars

The Skinni sell is hard to swallow when it comes with as much sugar as two scoops of Breyers vanilla ice cream. Whether it’s weight loss, appetite control, or muscle growth you seek, look for shakes high in protein and fiber and low in sugar, like the Slim-Fast! French Vanilla. The classic weight-loss shake curbs hunger with a respectable 10 grams of protein and 5 grams of fiber.

Drink This Instead!
Slim-Fast! French Vanilla (11 fl oz can)
180 calories
6 g fat (1.5 g saturated)
18 g sugars

Worst Functional Beverage
Arizona Rx Energy (1 can, 23 fl oz)
345 calories
0 g fat
83 g sugars (21 teaspoons of the stuff!)

Sugar Equivalent: 6 Cinnamon Roll Pop-Tarts

Obviously Arizona took great pains in making sure this can came out looking like something you’d find in a pharmacy. But if your pharmacist ever tries to sell you this much sugar, he should have his license revoked. And if it’s energy you’re after, this isn’t your best vehicle. Caffeine is the only compound in the bottle that’s been proven to provide energy, and the amount found within is about what you’d get from a weak cup of coffee.

Drink This Instead!
Glaceau Vitamin Water 10 Revitalize Green Tea (1 bottle, 20 fl oz)
25 calories
0 g fat
8 g sugars

Worst Frozen Fruit Drink
Krispy Kreme Lemon Sherbet Chiller (20 fl oz)
980 calories
40 g fat (36 g saturated)
115 g sugars (29 teaspoons of the stuff!)

Sugar Equivalent: 16 medium-size chocolate eclairs

Imagine taking a regular can of soda, pouring in 18 extra teaspoons of sugar, and then swirling in half a cup of heavy cream. Nutritionally speaking, that’s exactly what this is, which is how it manages to marry nearly two days’ worth of saturated fat with enough sugar to leave you with a serious sucrose hangover. Do your heart a favor and avoid any of Krispy Kreme’s “Kremey” beverages. The basic Chillers aren’t the safest of sippables either, but they’ll save you up to 880 calories.

Drink This Instead!
Very Berry Chiller (20 fl oz)
290 calories
0 g fat
71 g sugars

Worst “Health” Drink in America
Smoothie King Peanut Power Plus Grape (large, 40 fl oz)
1,498 calories
44 g fat (8 g saturated)
214 g sugars (a mind-blowing 54 teaspoons’ worth!)

Sugar Equivalent: 20 Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups

If Smoothie King wants someone to blame for landing this high on our worst beverages roundup (and truth be told, its entire menu is riddled with contenders), the chain should point the smoothie straw at whichever executive came up with the cup-sizing structure. Sending someone out the door with a 40-ounce cup? Who really needs a third of a gallon of sweetened peanut butter blended with grape juice, milk, and bananas? Sugar-and-fat-loaded smoothies like this should be served from 12-ounce cups, not mini kegs.

Drink This Instead!
High Protein Banana (small, 20 fl oz)
322 calories
9 g fat (1 g saturated)
23 g sugars

I LOVE being a few days ahead of national news…

Too much salt: Report urges FDA to force rollback

By AP Medical Writer Lauran Neergaard, Tue Apr 20, 5:23 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Too much salt is hidden in Americans’ food, and regulators plan to work with manufacturers to cut back — but the government isn’t ready to go along with a major new recommendation that it order a decrease.

“We believe we can achieve some substantial voluntary reductions,” Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg told The Associated Press on Tuesday. “We are shaping a strategy, and that strategy involves working in partnership.”

Don’t expect soups, pizzas and breakfast cereals — yes, they contain added sodium, too — to taste different any time soon. The FDA’s plans are still being formulated, but the idea is for gradual change so consumer taste buds can adjust, as well as industry recipes and production methods.

Americans eat about 1 1/2 teaspoons of salt daily, more than double what they need for good health and enough to increase the risk of high blood pressure, strokes and other problems. Most of that sodium doesn’t come from the table salt shaker; it’s hidden inside common processed foods and restaurant meals.

On Tuesday, the prestigious Institute of Medicine said the food industry has made little progress in voluntarily reducing sodium. The advisers urged the FDA to set maximum sodium levels for different foods in a stepwise rollback, so that eventually average consumption would drop by about half a teaspoon.

“This needs to be a mandatory standard,” said Dr. Jane E. Henney of the University of Cincinnati, a former FDA commissioner who headed the IOM’s study. Because salt is so “ubiquitous, having one or two in the industry make strong attempts at this doesn’t give us that even playing field over time. It’s not sustainable.”

The IOM report doesn’t set a deadline, but says it will take years to phase in the changes for consumers who are used to the taste of a high-salt diet.

One in three U.S. adults has high blood pressure, which in turn is a leading cause of heart attacks, strokes and kidney failure. And while being overweight and inactive raises blood pressure, too much salt is a big culprit as well. The American Medical Association has said 150,000 lives a year could be saved by cutting in half sodium levels in processed and restaurant food.

“This is crying out for a change that’s long overdue,” added Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who helped spur the IOM report and plans hearings on next steps.

Hamburg told the AP that while her agency is reviewing the recommendations, it isn’t currently writing new regulations — and that setting legal limits on how much sodium can be added to different foods would take longer than collaborating with food makers on salt-cutting goals.

“We would be working with them to establish targets,” she said. “We absolutely see reducing salt in the diets of Americans as a very important public health priority. … You’ll see us sitting down with key industry partners and starting to define a roadmap.”

Government guidelines set 2,300 milligrams of sodium as the maximum daily intake — the amount above which health problems can appear. The IOM says people need just 1,500 mg a day for good health, less if they’re over 50. Yet average consumption is more than 3,400 mg.

The food industry has long argued that it didn’t have tasty ways to replace sodium if it made deep cuts. But brand-to-brand differences in the same foods suggest that’s not so, and some food giants are leading the way in sodium reduction.

ConAgra Foods Inc. — makers of products including Chef Boyardee canned pasta, Healthy Choice frozen dinners and Hunt’s tomato sauces — last fall pledged a 20 percent reduction in its food lines by 2015. The Omaha, Neb.-based company says its cuts would eliminate a stunning 10 million pounds of salt from the U.S. diet.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association said Tuesday that its companies look forward to working with FDA “to develop a national sodium reduction strategy that will help consumers.”

New York City just began a closely watched program to reduce salt levels in restaurant and store-bought foods, with the goal of cutting salt levels by a quarter over five years. The health department’s guidelines are voluntary, setting targets for different kinds of foods.

Leaving it to consumers to know how much sodium they eat and cut back on their own doesn’t work, the IOM report said.

“Phasing in a population-wide decrease in salt intake is probably the most practical way to go,” agreed Tufts University nutrition scientist Alice Lichtenstein, an American Heart Association spokeswoman. “If they become mandatory, then I think we will see change.”

In a conversation about eating healthier food and weight loss, one of my co-workers complained that it “costs so much to eat healthy.”   OK, let’s set aside the arguments about how cheap a stay in a coronary care unit is these days and focus on the real meat and potatoes of the argument… so to speak.  I ran across this article today on the Associated Press website.  It kind of kills that whole, it costs to much to change argument.

How to eat well on a food stamp budget: $68.88

By PERVAIZ SHALLWANI, The Associated Press

How well can a family of four eat on just $68.88 a week? For more than 38 million Americans, it’s more than a matter of conjecture.

With job growth and the economy still only sputtering along, a record number of Americans have turned to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the formal name for federal food stamp program.

At the end of last year, roughly 1 in 8 Americans received food stamps, the highest rate ever, according to Lisa Pino, the program’s deputy administrator. During the past two years alone, another nearly 12 million people enrolled in the program.

How much a family gets per month is determined by a number of factors, but typically ranges from less than $100 to more than $500. The national average for a family of four at the end of 2009 was $275.53 a month, or about $68.88 a week.

Despite growing dependence on food stamps, the popular impression is that the meals you can make with them are bleak.

To find out how well you can eat on food stamps, the AP asked two chefs and a magazine food editor to plan out seven days of meals for a family of four using that budget: $68.88.

Food stamp officials note that the program is meant to supplement a household’s food budget, not be its only spending. But to best illustrate what’s possible — or not — on a very tight budget, we asked the participants to work with the food stamp budget only.

“It was tough. You really have to think outside the box,” says Jose Garces, a Food Network Iron Chef and James Beard award-winning chef from Philadelphia. “When you are used to creating food the way we do, it takes you back.”

Though not everyone succeeded in staying within budget, the lessons learned were universal. All three said planning and careful shopping were key, as was a willingness to recast leftovers. They also championed chicken as an inexpensive and versatile protein.

Here’s how they managed:

___

Bill Telepan of Telepan restaurant in New York

Telepan approached the food stamp challenge with the same sustainable eating philosophy he uses at his restaurant. He favors high-quality, unprocessed ingredients (organic when possible) and plenty of from-scratch cooking.

“The problem with the way some people spend food stamps is by buying processed foods,” he says. “I wanted to buy everything fresh and cook from scratch. You are not going to do it every day. But do it two or three times a week and then make enough so you heat it up.”

Processed foods may sometimes seem less expensive, but they are harder to stretch and generally not as healthy. Telepan also looked for more seasonal foods, which generally are cheaper.

But even without buying the organic, grass-fed meats he favors, Telepan still came in nearly $20 over budget. Some aggressive use of coupons, sales and bulk shopping probably could bring his total closer to the goal.

When constructing his menu, Telepan began by selecting the protein and building out from there. This ensured the meals were satisfying.

He also assembled his meal plan backward, starting with each day’s dinner, then sorting out how to use the leftovers in other meals. For example, the leftovers from Monday’s roasted chicken dinner became a salad for lunch on Tuesday. And ziti that was served with broccoli, toasted garlic and shell beans on Wednesday got a makeover with meatballs two nights later.

Of course, cooking from scratch is more work, which many busy families will find daunting. Telepan advocates involving the whole family in the cooking. “People look at cooking as a chore,” he says. “In the end, if people all help out it makes it fun.”

Where the money went:

Telepan’s menu came to $87.76, nearly $20 over budget. The biggest chunk of that — $31.01 — was spent on produce, with another $22.48 on dry goods such as bread, pasta, rice, beans and oatmeal. Meat — two whole chickens ands 2 pounds of ground beef — accounted for another $18.62. A savvy shopper could use coupons, sales and bulk purchases to get his menu closer to budget.

___

Anna Last, editor of Everyday Food magazine

Last focused on stretching her ingredients as far as possible and budgeting her time as much as her cash.

When planning out the week, she was careful not to schedule too many time-consuming recipes in a row. When she planned the chili garlic chicken legs one night, she followed it with an easier rice and beans the next.

Like Telepan, she avoided processed foods. Not only are whole foods often more nutritious, they usually are easier to stretch.

“Cooking on a budget and actually cooking means cooking without using packaged foods,” she says. “Packaged food can often be not as nutritious for you. You are also paying for the convenience sometimes. Pasta sauce is a convenience. Cooking it yourself, you know what’s in it. There is less sodium. There is less fat. It’s those sorts of things that you have to think of as well.”

How she shopped also was part of her plan for staying on budget. If possible, she says don’t shop when hungry or with your children, both of which can prompt unplanned purchases. And always use a list; it makes shopping faster because you only look for what you need.

“It also helps you avoid buying extra things,” she says. “To me, writing the list is the most important thing.”

When selecting foods, Last started with foods she liked, as well as basic staples. She also made sure to buy foods with multiple uses — such as flour, oil and spices. But she splurged where she could, as with buttermilk and andoiuille sausage. She simply bought those items in smaller amounts or made sure she had uses for leftovers.

“Throw out nothing,” she says. “If you want a special ingredient, figure out what else to do with it.”

This is where Last turned to a kitchen sink stew, building around extra chicken legs and adding anything that was leftover from the week. “You can use almost any vegetable in it.”

Where the money went:

Last spent a total of $68.49, giving her 39 cents to spare. Nearly $22 of that was spent on about 14 pounds of meat, mostly chicken, ground beef and a bit of bacon. About another $22 was spent on produce, with the remaining money split between dry goods and dairy, including milk, eggs and cheese.

___

Jose Garces of Philadelphia

Garces’ signature style is to dress up simple foods with plenty of ethnic flavors. And because seasonings — both dry spices and fresh herbs_ tend to be inexpensive, his is an approach that works well when trying to make the most of a small budget.

Inexpensive basics — such as pasta, beans, greens and potatoes — can get tons of flavor from spices and herbs. The same foods also can taste radically different from one meal to the next — Indian flavors one night, Asian the next and Mexican on the third.

Garces suggests that budget shoppers start in the grocer’s ethnic aisle, where the products generally are less expensive.

Budget cooking “traces back to roots in ethnic cooking,” he says. “If you look back in history, people had to survive, and using inexpensive products became ways to survive and using those inexpensive products became traditional dishes.”

To create his menu, Garces drew on his Mexican roots, as well as his love of Indian food. Beans, spices, herbs and produce are at the heart of both cuisines — and are among the least expensive ingredients at the grocer.

If cooking ethnic dishes intimidates you, head to the library, which should have plenty of books covering plenty of cuisines.

On his menu, an inexpensive chipotle pepper gives a kick to meatloaf. Smokey paprika adds depth to roasted chicken.

“It’s all about shopping and buying the right amounts,” he says. “Buy products that contain a ton of flavor. Chorizo typically has paprika, black pepper, garlic, cumin and a lot of pork fat.”

Where the money went:

Garces spent $69.54, just 66 cents over budget. Nearly $23 went to meat, including high-flavor items such as chorizo and bacon. Another $18 was spent on dry goods and flavorful foods, such as salsa, roasted peppers, chipotles in adobo sauce, paprika and maple syrup. The rest was split mostly between dairy and produce, including garlic, avocado and lemons.

I ran across this website today and I thought I was going to try to crawl through the computer and strangle somebody.  Normally when I look at a diet I really am comparing it to what I am currently doing and trying to decide if I may get better results.

In this case it was like a train wreck.  I could not look away!  Here some of the things the website (http://www.fatloss4idiots.com/00009/GetDiet.php) had to say and my comments.

 You have to wonder if people like this got their start by pimping out their sister.

Two years ago I filled out all the paperwork to apply to be on the show the “Biggest Loser”.  I figured if they could do it I could do it.  And then I told some of my friends what I was doing and they asked me if I had lost my mind.  Their concern was not about rapid weight loss, they were concerned about the fact that I would opening myself up to complete public ridicule, on national TV, as a fat guy.  Fortunately they talked me out of it

Today I saw the article below and I am twice as glad they talked me out of it!

‘The Biggest Loser’ Has Big Problems, Health Experts Say

Stephanie Pappas – LiveScience Contributor
Sun Feb 21, 4:16 pm ET

NBC’s “The Biggest Loser” is all about records. In the past seasons, the weight-loss reality show has repeatedly set new benchmarks for heaviest contestant (454, 476 and 526 pounds), fastest 100-pound weight loss (seven weeks), and most weight lost in one week (34 pounds).

The show, which takes obese Americans and pits them against each other in a battle to lose the most weight and win $250,000, thrives on extreme numbers. But physicians and nutritionists worry the show’s focus on competitive weight loss is, at best, counterproductive and, at worst, dangerous.

“They’re taking people who have been inactive and are not in good shape and boom, automatically subjecting them to this stress,” Carol Wolin-Riklin, the bariatric nutrition coordinator for the University of Texas Medical School at Houston, told LiveScience. “Things are going to happen.”

And indeed, things have. Two patients were hospitalized after collapsing during a one-mile (1.6 km) foot race for the season 8 premiere. This year’s season 9 opened with another strenuous challenge in which contestants raced 26.2 miles (42 km) on stationary bikes. Show medical consultant and UCLA professor Rob Huizenga had to drag one protesting contestant off her bike when she was stricken with severe cramps. A second contestant, 526-pound Michael Ventrella, was treated for exhaustion.

Health risks of obesity

The show’s producers point out that contestants are under medical supervision and say the extreme nature of the competition is inspirational for viewers.

And of course, there are serious health risks to being as obese as the Biggest Loser contestants. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), obesity can increase the risk of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and certain types of cancer. The risks become more pronounced as the obesity becomes more severe, and losing weight is a very good idea, said Wolin-Riklin if done right.

“The way I go about encouraging healthful weight loss is by working on changes one at a time,” she said. “By making these changes bit-by-bit I think you have a better shot at having long-lasting lifestyle changes.”

Real-life weight loss?

But weight loss on “The Biggest Loser” is far removed from weight loss in the real world.

For one thing, contestants start out in worse shape than most. Seventeen of the 22 contestants have a body mass index (BMI) over 40, meaning they are severely obese. In the “real world,” more than one-third of U.S. adults, or 72 million people, are considered obese with a BMI of 30 or higher, according to the CDC. But research published last month in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the number of Americans with a BMI over 40 is just under 6 percent. In other words, the show’s claim that the contestants are the “epitome” of American obesity is a bit like saying that VH1′s “Rock of Love with Bret Michaels” epitomizes the American dating scene.

And then there’s the exercise program. Contestants work out five to six hours a day, eating strictly supervised diets.  They routinely drop double-digit pounds each week. The contestant who loses the smallest percentage of body weight can be sent home.

In reality, said physician Robert Kushner, the clinical director of the Northwestern University Comprehensive Center on Obesity, a safe rate of weight loss is about one to two pounds per week.

“I think a lot of people can feel quite defeated that they’re losing weight in what we would call a recommended amount, but they would have been voted off the show immediately,” Kushner told LiveScience. “So the message, to me, is just all wrong.”

So is the science. Losing weight rapidly can be risky, according to Virginia Tech professor of human nutrition, foods and exercise Janet Walberg Rankin. Patients who lose weight quickly run the risk of gallstones, mineral deficiencies, loss of muscle tissue and reduced bone density.

Beginning strenuous exercise suddenly can cause problems with hydration, electrolyte balance and cardiac function. High impact workouts can put an extra load on already-stressed bones. At least two contestants in Biggest Loser history have struggled with stress fractures.

Regaining the weight

Risks aside, weight-loss experts say that the biggest problem with the Biggest Loser is that extreme methods of dropping pounds are less likely to work in the long run. Several former Biggest Loser contestants have regained some or all of the weight, which doesn’t surprise Kushner.

“They’re not working with a trainer every day, they’re not on national TV every day, they’re back to life,” he said. “It’s very difficult to sustain.”

While researchers aren’t sure if repeated cycles of weight lost and weight gained are more dangerous than staying overweight or obese, the psychological toll of failing to keep weight off can be grim, said Kushner. People often feel like failures and become hopeless about their health.

Those looking for a safe way to lose weight or get healthier permanently should make small changes, Kushner said, like gradually increasing exercise or substituting healthy foods for unhealthy ones. In the real world, slow, steady and committed wins the race.

“We’re not looking for extreme makeovers in someone’s lifestyle,” Kushner said. “We’re looking for changes that they can sustain long-term.”