-
Fitness Buzz: Dog Yoga, Soda Tax, and More
Tweet Share on Facebook April 10, 2009 Comment (1)Too busy to catch all the week's fitness, diet, and workout news as it happened? Here's a quick wrap-up of what was getting buzz.
The " Upward-Paw Pose " Gains Pup-ularity
Dogs certainly live in the moment, and we all know they're capable of assuming twisty (and often disgusting) positions in pursuit of a good self-lick, so I suppose it was inevitable that someone would find them ideal candidates for yoga. The New York Times reports that doga—yoga with dogs—is attracting adherents. You too, can pay $15 to $25 for the privilege of rolling around on the floor with your pooch! (Or you can take him for a walk and then nap together afterward, which costs exactly nothing.) Even if you think it's silly, the accompanying slide show, mostly showing befuddled or sleeping dogs, is a hoot. (Watch for the miniature schnauzer doing the chaturanga pose.) -
A Novel Cure for Obesity: Tax Sugary Sodas
Tweet Share on Facebook April 9, 2009 Comment (81)Your views on solutions to the obesity problem will depend on how you see its causes. If you assume extra pounds are purely a matter of self-control and personal responsibility, you are likely to believe the answer is for people to simply muster up willpower and burn off more calories than they take in. (I heard from a lot of personal-responsibility advocates when I wrote about the health claims for VitaminWater.) If you believe that individuals fight an uphill battle given the "obesogenic" environment, you're more likely to be sympathetic to things like regulating how food companies market and label their products or using the tax code to change habits.
That latter proposal is the subject of a piece in the current New England Journal of Medicine by Kelly Brownell, professor and director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, and Thomas Frieden, the health commissioner for the city of New York. The authors support the concept of a penny-per-ounce excise tax on sugar-sweetened soft drinks (including nondiet sodas and energy drinks but excluding fruit juice), saying it could cut their consumption by 10 percent. The proceeds, the article says, could be used to promote or even subsidize more healthful foods, like fruits and veggies, whose boosters lack the marketing resources of Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Producing behavior change by education alone would be tough, they write, but "a sales tax on sugared drinks would generate considerable revenue, and as with the tax on tobacco, it could become a key tool in efforts to improve health."
-
Here Come My Peeps! Eat That Easter Candy Wisely
Tweet Share on Facebook April 8, 2009 Comment (2)Remember the big SnackWells craze of the 1990s? Consumers flocked to the lowfat or nonfat cookies until they realized (and nutritionists noted) that when fat is subtracted from treats, sugar is usually added. There's a tradeoff in most traditional sweets: You can have a lower percentage of fat or of sugar, but typically not both. Such is the dilemma with Easter candy. Marshmallow Peeps have zero fat but are almost 90 percent sugar. My personal faves, Cadbury Crème Eggs, are about 150 calories a pop and 30 percent fat and are almost 60 percent sugar. Their cousins, Cadbury Caramel Eggs, at 170 calories each, have proportionately less sugar—38 percent—but are approaching 50 percent fat.
What's a candy lover to do? You can check out this excellent analysis of some common Easter treats by dietitian Melanie Douglass, who examines candy by its sugar, fat, and calorie content, and use it to guide your choices. As a rule of thumb, the more chocolate involved, the more fat, sugar, and calories. That's why chocolate bunnies, whether hollow or solid, are high on her offender lists. Her "best choices" list includes candy that includes a little bit of chocolate but also some less-caloric filler (marshmallow bunny, Cadbury Crème Egg), or that is mostly sugar (Peeps, Starbursts, fruit snacks). She also offers some alternatives to candy, including Tic-Tacs and apple juice, but that isn't going to do it for me or, I suspect, 99 percent of the candy-eating population.
-
Fitness Buzz: Antioxidants on Labels, Aerobics, and More
Tweet Share on Facebook April 3, 2009 Comment (5)Too busy to catch all the week's fitness, diet, and workout news as it happened? Here's a quick wrap-up of what was getting buzz.
"Antioxidant" as Marketing Tool
Slap the word "antioxidant" on a food label and people are more likely to buy it, Marion Nestle, a New York University professor, writes on her Food Politics blog. Food manufacturers introduced 300 new antioxidant-labeled products to the U.S. market last year, despite studies showing that supplemental antioxidants (as opposed to the ones that occur naturally in fruits and vegetables) don't do much to improve health outcomes and in fact may do some harm. I wrote about VitaminWater's labels, including the brand's antioxidant claims, earlier this year. -
Sorting Out Sweeteners: Agave, Corn Syrup, Sugar, and More
Tweet Share on Facebook April 3, 2009 Comment (4)Sweetness travels under a variety of aliases. Just check out the label of your favorite cereal or beverage and you're likely to see the flavor show up many times, in the form of high-fructose corn syrup, dextrose, cane syrup, maple syrup, fructose, molasses, honey—and even agave, the latest caloric sweetener, which is derived from a plant native to Mexico. (These are all in addition, of course, to plain old table sugar, or sucrose.)
You might also find some food labels or manufacturers hinting that their source of sweetness is more healthful than the others. Since the concept of "healthy" can be awfully fuzzy, let's put it bluntly. "All of these are empty calories that offer you no nutrition," says Dawn Jackson Blatner, a dietitian and spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association. That doesn't mean they're forbidden, just that they should be eaten in moderation, she says.
-
Calories Burned Per Mile: A Fitness Myth Debunked
Tweet Share on Facebook April 2, 2009 Comment (4)There's a lot of misinformation out there about exercise and nutrition. In this recurring feature, I ask experts in those fields about their fitness pet peeves—common myths that are just plain wrong. This week, I talked to Conrad Earnest, an exercise biologist at Louisiana State University's Pennington Biomedical Research Institute.
Myth: You burn the same number of calories whether you walk or run a mile.
Explanation: Not true. The general reason is that your body becomes less efficient as you switch from walking to jogging to running, requiring more and more energy to cover the same distance. In other words, a mile is not a mile is not a mile. If your goal is to lose weight, running would be a better option.
-
April Fools’ Fitness: Bacon Popcorn and More
Tweet Share on Facebook April 1, 2009 Comment (1)Every year on April Fools' Day I remind myself to be on my guard, and every year I forget long enough to believe something I shouldn't. Here's this year's roundup on the diet and exercise front. Find any more? Post links in the comments section.
Alice Waters Launches Frozen Entree Line
Sustainable-food guru Alice Waters has introduced a line of frozen entrees, says Civil Eats. The package contains no actual food but instead consists of a $19.99 terra-cotta plate, perfectly seasoned and awaiting your own local vegetables.













