Product Review #11

By Steve | Filed in Product Reviews

Steve Dupont reviews the product: Raw Revolution Organic Greens Superfood Bar – Apple Cinnamon

Approximate cost: $2.50

Where I purchased: Whole Foods

Why I would buy this product again:
Very solid, nutrition-packed ingredient list. Moist texture and good flavor overall.

Why I would not buy this product again:
Expensive and somewhat gimmicky. Mineral content unspecified (though it may be quite robust). Possible quality control issue with hair in the bar (not entirely sure about this).

Am I likely to buy this product again?
Probably not.

Ratings (out of 5)
Nutrition: 3
Taste: 4

Other notes:
Spirulina and chorella are a great one-two punch for antioxidant and detoxifying activity, however, it’s unlikely that the amounts in this bar are high enough to have any substantial effect in this regard.

      

Mmm ... formaldehyde producing nectar of the Gods!

So, the U.S. government just added formaldehyde to their list of carcinogenic substances. Credit where credit is due … But what remains OFF the list, and IN thousands of products from Diet Coke to Activia yogurt, is the artificial sweetener aspartame.

The connection?

Well, it’s a documented scientific fact that aspartame breaks down to formaldehyde at temperatures upwards of 90 degrees. Like, inside the human body for example.

      

Product Review #10

By Steve | Filed in Product Reviews

Steve Dupont reviews the products: Enrico’s Salsa (Mild) and Green Mountain Gringo Tortilla Strips


 

Enrico’s Salsa

Approximate cost: $4

Where I purchased: Whole Foods

Why I would buy this product again:

Fairly good, zesty flavor. Wholesome, all natural ingredients. Apple cider vinegar has many medicinal properties.

Why I would not buy this product again:

High acidity level, flavor could be better.

Am I likely to buy this product again?

Perhaps, but I’d like to try the “Medium” or “Hot” varieties.

Ratings (out of 5, in its category)

Nutrition: 4

Taste: 3

Other notes:

In the summertime especially, homemade salsa is the way to go.

 

Green Mountain Gringo Tortilla Strips

Approximate cost: $2

Where I purchased: Whole Foods

Why I would buy this product again:

Made with organic, non-GMO corn. Quite sturdy strips more conducive to salsa-dipping than triangle or circle-shaped chips.

Why I would not buy this product again:

Generally speaking, corn chips are not very nutritious. Carbs and salt is basically what you’re getting and little else.

Am I likely to buy this product again?

Yes.

Ratings (out of 5, in its category)

Nutrition: 4

Taste: 4

      

Don't fret Mr. Monster, sugar-free turmeric cookies might be quite tasty.

Recently sugar has been a hot topic of conversation in the cancer arena, with many articles such as this one in the New York Times noting that the scientific jury is more or less out on the fact that sugar feeds cancer cells. Of course, some people, namely Dr. Robert Lustig, have gone one step further and actually contend that sugar causes cancer. Not so nice a prospect for the Cookie Monsters out there, myself included.

Then, on the preventative side of the issue, you have the incredible story of curcumin borne out by research from the very prominent and mainstream University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Curcumin is the primary component of the spice turmeric by the way, and the short and sweet of this new research is that curcumin was found to have an innate “intelligence,” such that it can distinguish between cancer cells and normal healthy cells. The real kicker, however, is how curcumin interacts with these two types of cells. Not only does it flip gene switches that destroy cancer cells, it also serves to bolster the defenses of healthy cells. Yowza!

With a finding like that, you’d think that today’s front page article in the Wall Street Journal — citing MD Anderson Cancer Center as a primary source mind you — would contain the word “curcumin” at least once. But yet, it seems a curious omission. The article does of course mention drugs from the likes of Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Pfizer … go figure.

      

Get your head down and raise your coffee cup!

Steve Dupont here with a little sweet talkin’ for you today on the subject of Splenda.

For those who may not know, Splenda is essentially another word for sucralose — although, interestingly enough, the actual packets of Splenda you may put in your coffee only contain 1.1% sucralose, the rest being maltodextrin and dextrose, which are also in the sugar family but used as fillers. So if you use a 1 g packet of Splenda, that equates to 11 mg of sucralose. Make a note of that, because there will be a quiz later …

With all the backlash against aspartame in recent years, and rightfully so in my opinion, given the number of disturbing studies on its metabolic effects — hell, it turns into wood alcohol and formaldehyde in your system! — Splenda has gained a lot of ground in the sugar substitute field (although aspartame is still the dominant sweetener in most diet soft drinks and other sugar-free products). And I must admit that, while I’ve had it in my “should avoid” category for years, I’ve also believed it to be relatively harmless in moderation, especially compared to aspartame.

Now, that opinion started to change this morning, when I read the following headline out of Mercola.com:

The other sweetener that’s made from sugar but is closer to DDT

This piqued my interest, as intended, so I read the article and found out that the other sweetener in question was Splenda.

To summarize the Splenda piece, it starts by laying out how artificial sweeteners in general have been shown to have a counterproductive effect on weight loss — that is, they actually trigger more cravings that lead to weight gain, and a couple studies are cited to back that up. The article also points out that Splenda — like aspartame and countless other artificial ingredients — has never been adequately proven safe for human consumption at any level. Also arguably true.

Then at last you get to that sensational part about Splenda being closer to DDT than sugar, which is never really fleshed out at all — except to say that both DDT and Splenda (sucralose) have chlorine atoms attached to them (Mercola says chlorine “molecules” which is not technically correct). It’s true, the similarity is there — sucralose has two 6-carbon rings (glucose and fructose, which together form sucrose) with three chlorine atoms attached to them — while DDT is also comprised of two 6-carbon rings (two benzene molecules) with a total of five chlorines attached to them. But chemistry is a funny thing. Not only can compounds with just one or two atoms difference have totally different properties, even two compounds with exactly the same chemical formula but different structural orientation (isomers) can behave very differently. The point is, I don’t think Splenda will be used as a pesticide anytime soon.

And I have one more big beef with this article — again, not for being wholly inaccurate but for sensationalizing and overreaching. When talking about the alleged dangerous effects of Splenda, Mercola says it “reduces the amount of good bacteria in your intestines by 50 percent, “increases the pH level in your intestines” and “affects a glycoprotein in your body that can have crucial health effects.” All this may very well be true, based on the cited study. But then again, it may NOT be true.

See, if Mercola was being precise, he would have said “Splenda has been shown to reduce the amount of good bacteria in rats’ intestines by 50%,” and so on, replacing “your” with “rats.’” After all, this was a study in which sucralose was fed to rats, not people. And, needless to say, animal studies can predict what will happen in humans, but not always. After all, most of us don’t have whiskers and tails.

That said, however, the effects of relatively moderate doses of sucralose in this study are a little concerning — namely, killing friendly gut flora (bacteria) and raising the pH (acidity) in the digestive tract, as measured in the stool (rat poop). It’s not clear if either of these conditions would impact humans in the same way, or what secondary health effects might result, but I can tell you this. You want friendly bacteria in your gut for proper digestion, immune function and much more. And you also want your pH to be in the neutral range (about 7.4). Not that you’re measuring, but the point is that when your body gets too acidic — as was happening to these rats — this is like throwing a monkey wrench into all the major enzymatic processes of your body. Which is to say, just about your entire metabolism, from the first gulp of that Diet Coke with Splenda to the point where your cells’ mitochondria turn it into the energy you need to grab the Twinkies off the top shelf of the cupboard …

Speaking of Diet Coke with Splenda — it’s not easy to find out how much actual sucralose a can of Diet Coke with Splenda contains. I searched all the various Internets and found nothing, so I called the Coca-Cola Corporation and indeed got the answer from a friendly representative named Toby: 60 mg per 12 oz. can.

Now, here’s the interesting part. The lowest doses at which rats in the previously cited study showed these various ill side effects was 1.1 mg/kg body weight. To put that in perspective, for a 132-pound (60 kg) person that would be 66 mg/day. It would take six packets of Splenda to reach that threshold — or, just over one can of Diet Coke. You think anyone (namely women, in the ballpark of 132 pounds) in this country is drinking more than one can of Diet Coke with Splenda per day?

Uh … I would venture to say YES.

To that, I would echo what researchers (wanting more research money) are always saying … “More studies are warranted.” (bigger and better ones, preferably with willing humans this time).

 

      

Product Review #9

By Steve | Filed in Product Reviews

Steve Dupont reviews the product: ThinkThin Tangerine Creamsicle Bar

Approximate cost: $1.50

Where I purchased: Whole Foods

Why I would buy this product again:
Good supplemental protein source, good macronutrient balance, loaded with vitamins and minerals (calcium, in particular)

Why I would not buy this product again:
Based mainly on soy protein as opposed to whey (which I prefer), long ingredient list, questionable “natural flavors,” not my favorite flavor profile, too many strong competitors in protein bar field

Am I likely to buy this product again?
No.

Ratings (out of 5)
Nutrition: 4
Taste: 2

Other notes:
Again, reflective of my four-bell review, this bar has a lot going for it in the nutritional category. I especially like the calcium it delivers, although in a high soy environment one might easily argue the calcium would be bound up by the phytates and not highly absorbed. Nevertheless, it would be a stronger supplement for someone who consumed few or zero dairy products and needed to boost calcium, in addition to protein. Ultimately for me, however, this is not the case and besides the sub-par taste of the product is an absolute deal breaker, given so many other viable choices in this category.

      

The next big diet craze?

By Steve | Filed in Essays

In just 60 days, you could look like this!

Steve Dupont here. That’s right, folks, make a mental note — you heard it first at nutritionnewsandreviews.com — the next big diet craze to sweep our diet crazy nation will be …

The Gilligan Diet.

Go ahead, laugh it up land lubbers! But then consider bizarre regimens the likes of the Twinkie Diet, the Martini Diet, the Cabbage Soup Diet and let’s not forget the infamous Tapeworm diet have garnered inexplicable cult followings in recent years. The Gilligan Diet may have a funny name (unlike its namesake, by the way), but it’s based on some serious nutritional principles. So what is the Gilligan Diet you ask?

Basically, fish and coconut. Coconut and fish. Maybe a few extra fruits and vegetables thrown it for good measure. Seaweed, wild boar, macadamia nuts, all acceptable. But mainly fish and coconut.

So let’s take a closer look at this thing. Fish. Well, we know that fish has been a dietary staple throughout the world for thousands of years. Excellent protein source, first and foremost. Also rich in heart- and brain-healthy omega-3 fatty acids, namely docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Not too shabby a source of vitamin D, either — of course, if you’re out in the noonday sun as much as Gilligan, this won’t be a problem. Granted, different species have different nutritional profiles, and those at the top of the food chain are a double-edged swordfish — bringing ample DHA but also higher levels of mercury and other bio-accumulated toxins … but, generally speaking, few nutrition “experts” these days would throw the fish out with the fishbowl water.

Now for coconut. A little more rebellious. You might even be tempted to say, a little on the “craze-ish” side. Coconut of course was long reviled for its high saturated fat content, but in recent years a veritable Pandora’s box of scientific evidence has been unleashed, vaunting coconut oil, in particular, to bona fide “superfood” status. For example, according to Jonny Bowden, PhD, author of the phenomenal book, The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth, “Coconut — and its oil — is one of the most healthy, amazing things you can ingest.”

Indeed, it been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the medium-chain (saturated) fatty acids offered by coconut are very friendly to the human metabolism and are a preferred energy source. Meaning they are less likely than some other saturated fats, and even some unsaturated fats, to be stuffed inside adipose (fat) cells and increase your adiposity (fat-assed-ness) as a result. They also tend to have a positive effect on your lipid profile — that is, your levels of “good cholesterol” (HDL), “bad cholesterol” (LDL), triglycerides (free circulating fat globs), etc. In fact, studies have been done on some of these remote Pacific islands (Pukapuka and Tokelau, in particular), where the people eat tons of coconuts (and fish), and it turns out their hearts are downright horse-like.

Of course, I failed to mention the most obvious plus for coconut as a subsistence food, which is that it offers hydration as well. Not only coconut water — which is admittedly over-hyped as a nutritious beverage — but coconut milk, both of which contain a smattering of minerals. I don’t think I would make either a huge component of the Gilligan Diet, just for the sake of practicality (and cost), but it’s still another legitimate bragging right for the coconut.

But wait! There’s more! It has also been demonstrated in multiple studies that one major component of coconut oil, lauric acid, is one of the most potent natural germ-killers around. In the body, lauric acid is readily converted to monolaurin — which, unlike penicillin or zinc lozenges, can effectively destroy bacteria and viruses. For a nice rundown of the science on coconut/monolaurin, check out this article.

Coconut just might be the ultimate survival food. In fact, now that I think about it, if I were stranded on a desert island with just one food, I just might choose coconut. How convenient!

As a final note on coconut, if you’re not crazy about the idea of eating spoonfuls of coconut oil (delicious, I must say) or piles of fluffy shredded coconut (also delish), consider that coconut sugar and even coconut flour are now available on the market. Needless to say, one will cost you an arm, the other a leg, but would you believe that coconut flour has about 50% more protein than whole wheat flour? Gadzoinks! Again, it’s not the coconut’s fault this stuff goes at such a premium … and who knows, maybe if demand increased, supply would increase even more and the price would come down … hmm, that sounds a little too voodoo economics …

So anyway, coconut and fish. Fish and coconut. The anchor of the Gilligan Diet. But, as elegant as it might be — from a marketing perspective — let me be the first to say I would have grave reservations about anyone eating these two foods alone. For one thing, vitamin C might very well become an issue, and you don’t want to hear my full lecture (2,309 powerpoint slides, approximately 13 hours long) on the perils of scurvy, which is a cakewalk in a candy store compared to the ravages of scurvy itself. THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

Seriously though, variety is always the name of the game in nutrition, therefore you might very well run into deficiencies in other key vitamins or minerals, as well. Thus, the other fruits and vegetables as mentioned before. Tropical, or not. Just absolutely, positively no cabbage soup, no tapeworms (martinis I’ll allow) and for the love of God, no Twinkies!

      

Product Review #8

By Steve | Filed in Product Reviews

Steve Dupont reviews the product: Peanut Butter & Co. Dark Chocolate Dreams

Approximate cost: $5

Where I purchased: Fresh Market

Why I would buy this product again:
Pure deliciousness, kids love it, no hydrogenated oils or corn syrup, less sugar overall than traditional peanut butter and jelly sandwich

Why I would not buy this product again:
If I stopped liking peanut butter and chocolate, ie., lost my freakin’ mind

Am I likely to buy this product again?
Giddy up!

Ratings (out of 5)
Nutrition: 3
Taste: 5

Other notes:
Did I mention this product is pure deliciousness?

      

Or Trojan rabbit, if you prefer ...

Steve Dupont here. It’s Wednesday, which means the weekend is finally coming into view, and for our household almost every one is anchored by two good, solid pancake breakfasts. Pancakes, griddle cakes, flapjacks, whatever you want to call ‘em, we love ‘em.

Now, in the traditional preparation, pancakes are the nutritional equivalent of … well, an anchor. It’s great at keeping your boat from drifting away, which is perfect if you just want to hang out and party on the boat — not so much if you actually want to go somewhere. I’m not sure if that analogy holds water, but the fact is that a typical pancake breakfast will fill you up with carbohydrates in two of the worst forms — sugar and white flour — and little else, namely protein or fiber. This is a recipe for wild blood glucose swings in the short term and possibly far graver consequences over the long term, if you develop a full-blown pancake habit (or donut habit, or muffin habit, etc.). Namely type 2 diabetes is going to be knocking on your door, and unlike the girl scouts you can’t just tell him you already bought some cookies, but thanks anyway.

I love the girl scouts and their cookies by the way, I just wish they weren’t a risk factor for type 2 diabetes (indeed, I’m pretty sure the American Diabetic Association specifically lists girl scout cookies, alongside obesity, as a risk factor).

Seriously though, here’s the thing about pancakes. I’m here to tell you that they can be delicious AND nutritious (relatively speaking). My secret recipe, now being divulged for the very first time is as follows:

2 cups flour (1 cup whole wheat, 1/2 cup buckwheat, 1/2 cup all-purpose or baking flour)

1/4 cup golden flaxseed meal

1/4 cup white chia seeds

1/4 cup wheat germ

6 Tablespoons buttermilk powder

1 Tablespoon baking powder (preferably aluminum-free)

1 Tablespoon cinnamon, or to taste

1/2 teaspoon salt

3 eggs

2 cups fresh or thawed frozen strawberries OR blueberries (preferably organic), pureed in food processor

1 1/2 cups water (preferably filtered, purified, etc.), perhaps a little more if your batter is too thick

Coconut oil spray

DIRECTIONS: Whisk together all the dry ingredients in a large mixing bowl. Add eggs, pureed berries and water, in no particular order. Mix by hand, as gently as possible, until homogeneous. Do not beat or over-mix. Heat pan or griddle to medium-high, spray with coconut oil and make pancakes. I’m sorry, I’m not going to hold your hand past this point. You should know how to make pancakes by now. Top with a little pure maple syrup or confectioner’s sugar.

So there you have it, a pancake the whole family can enjoy and be stealthily nourished by. Among other things, it contains significantly more Omega-3 fatty acids, fiber, and protein, as well as vitamins A, E and C, than “conventional” pancakes. The protein and fiber, in particular, are more likely to keep you satisfied until lunchtime. Plus, the cinnamon partially counteracts the glycemic load of the carbs, helping maintain a more stable blood sugar level after the meal. And as a final note, I will tell you this recipe has been rigorously field-tested and fine-tuned to pass muster with three picky eaters in my family, two of whom are young children.

If you decide to try it for yourself, or even modify the recipe to suit your own tastes, please let me know your thoughts in the comments.

      

Not the recommended means of consuming sesame seeds.

Steve Dupont here, to share a little info about this admittedly random food, a bag of which (whole, toasted), I happened to find the other day buried in my cupboard.

It was quite a large bag, too, a full pound I believe, and this of course prompted the question, “Why on earth did I purchase all these sesame seeds?” I vaguely recalled using them in a chicken dish a few months back, but surely there was more to the story … so I looked them up.

Well, it turns out these little buggers are quite the nutrition dynamo!

For starters, sesame seeds contain lignans (sesamin and sesaminol), which have been demonstrated to enhance fat burning, lower cholesterol and also stabilize blood pressure.

They are a good source of fiber, which is good for digestive health.

They are a good source of protein.

They contain “good fats” of the monounsaturated and polyunsaturated variety.

And finally, sesame seeds pack an impressive medley of minerals. Just one tablespoon of sesame seeds delivers 18% of your daily requirement for copper, as well as between 7-11% of your iron, magnesium, calcium and manganese. Again, that’s a lot of nutrition in just one tablespoon. Now, the one caveat here is with respect to the calcium, as they also contain oxalates, which bind to calcium and reduce the amount actually absorbed by the body. But nevertheless, not too shabby a report card for the sesame seeds.

So what I did, right off the bat, was mix a few spoonfuls into the chicken salad that I eat a few times a week for lunch — and they are barely noticeable, changing the flavor ever-so-mildly and the texture just a little more so.

Sesame seed buns, on the other hand — probably not such a good delivery system, especially if there’s four hamburger patties and eight slices of cheese wedged in there …

      

Product Review #7

By Steve | Filed in Product Reviews

Steve Dupont reviews the product: PopChips Parmesan Garlic Potato (chips)

Approximate cost: $3

Where I purchased: Whole Foods

Why I would buy this product again:
Attractive packaging, novelty of chips not baked or fried

Why I would not buy this product again:
Not significantly more nutritious, or less harmful, than typical baked or fried chips. Suspect ingredients including “natural flavors” and “autolyzed yeast extract,” a close relative to monosodium glutamate (MSG).

Am I likely to buy this product again?
Nope.

Ratings (out of 5)
Nutrition: 1
Taste: 3

Other notes:
This seems to be one of those products designed primarily to be marketable based on some contrived niche, that of course being the “not baked or fried” thing. A lame niche, and a pretty lame chip overall, in my opinion.

      

Getting “clean” only half the battle

By Steve | Filed in Essays

Steve Dupont here, with a few thoughts on the subject of “cleansing,” which has certainly been a hot topic in the nutrition and alternative medicine arenas lately.

Now, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of cleansing programs out there — from ones based around a central ingredient like green tea or psyllium husk or bentonite (clay) to juice fasts/feasts to 100% raw food diets, and everything in between. Quite a dizzying array of advice, claims and counterclaims shooting around out there … and that being said, I have no intention, at least at the current time, to point out the strengths, weaknesses, follies and indeed dangers of each and every program. Suffice it to say that, while I cannot argue with the central tenet of the cleansing approach — that is, ridding the body of toxins and otherwise burdensome substances — I remain very skeptical about even the most conservative of these programs, simply because there have been virtually no legitimate, peer-reviewed scientific studies conducted on these regimens.

Okay, with those caveats out of the way, I wanted to share a video produced by one of these people (a real medical doctor, apparently) selling cleanse products/programs, which a good friend of mine recently pointed me toward. Again, I haven’t looked at his specific program very carefully, and am by no means endorsing it — but I think this video does a terrific job of summing up the problems we face as a society as a result of our beguilement, shall we say, by the processed food-pharmaceutical complex (at least up to about the 2 min. mark, when they start selling their product):


 
Right. So I think the “tree” metaphor is just brilliant, and I agree one million percent that we would all be better served to withdraw ourselves from the chemical-laden foods and medications (in the latter case, doing so under close scrutiny of a trusted doctor). The million dollar question that remains, of course — which Dr. Junger and so many others are so eager to answer for us, in exchange for our money — is basically: “Assuming I can take all this stuff out of my diet, what do I replace it with?”

And this is where I would argue that “getting clean” is, at best, half the battle. We need to adopt long-term, healthy and sustainable eating habits. In other words, if you do your homework, and in fact do choose to undertake one of these cleansing programs (a proverbial “shock and awe” campaign on your body), it’s vitally important that you have some sort of practical, nutritional exit strategy. Not a diet, not a program, but a lifestyle. An overarching philosophy of “clean” living that informs and guides your food choices going forward. And, most importantly, one you actually enjoy!

What about you? Have you tried one of these cleansing programs? If you’re willing to share your experience, please do so in the comments section or on facebook, etc.

      

Product Review #6

By Steve | Filed in Product Reviews

Steve Dupont reviews the product: Kashi Tuscan Bake (frozen entree)


 
Approximate cost: $6

Where I purchased: Publix Grocery Store

Why I would buy this product again:
Good well-rounded meal, flavorful, wholesome and natural, convenient.

Why I would not buy this product again:
High sodium, somewhat expensive, I rarely eat frozen entrees.

Am I likely to buy this product again?
Yes.

Ratings (out of 5)
Nutrition: 4
Taste: 4

Other notes:
My one reservation about the sodium is counterbalanced by the high potassium in this product, as I elaborated upon in the review. As far as frozen entrees go, this seems like a top performer in the nutrition category. As I mentioned, however, I do not regularly purchase/eat foods in this category, so it’s difficult to make comparisons.

      

Managing your nutrition portfolio

By Steve | Filed in Essays

Do you have "Wimpy" will power?

Steve Dupont here, with the first of many short essays on the subject of nutrition.

Today we’re going to look at the big picture, and while I think financial analogies are overused and often overstretched, there are a few basic principles that work pretty well here, so why look a gift horse in the mouth, eh? I’m going to talk about three basic concepts that everyone is likely familiar with, in terms of investing strategies, and explain how these can also be applied to managing your “nutrition portfolio.”

The first is diversification. This is the one that all financial advisors, good or bad, hit you over the head with like a dead mackerel — and then, in the same breath, they tell you to put all your money into mutual funds … but that’s beside the point. Of course the “balanced diet” we always hear about is basically the same concept. Eat a wide variety of foods and not only do you better ensure you’ll receive a full complement of carbs, fats and protein, vitamins and minerals, etc. — but you better avoid toxins, allergens and even good solid nutrients that may be concentrated in certain foods. That’s not to say that if you fantasize about eating walnuts, or mangoes or even potato chips, that you shouldn’t fulfill your desires every day, in modest quantities. You just have to use your common sense.

Which is one good thing about nutrition, that being that most people have a good common sense when it comes to knowing what foods are good for them, generally speaking, and what foods are bad. The problem is, just like we often ignore the advice of our financial advisors (the ones who don’t just push mutual funds), we too often ignore the advice our own brains are doling out. After all, some evil bastard is always pushing donuts around the office, and the smell of cheeseburgers and fries at lunchtime turns you into a drooling moron like that Wimpy guy from the old Popeye cartoons. In other words, you have “Wimpy” will power. Join the club.

Okay, onto the second tenet of both good money and nutrition management: think long term.

The main area where this applies is “diets.” If you want to lose weight, for example, and are thinking about choosing a diet plan, one of your top criterion must be the overall practicality or sustainability of the plan. The main reason is that many studies show — and most of us know from experience anyway — that short term diets may produce results, but inevitably the weight is coming back. Often with souvenirs from its vacation. So, just like you should avoid having an abundance of volatile, flash-in-the-pan sort of stocks in your financial portfolio, you should avoid diet plans that are totally incongruent with a “balanced diet,” and one containing foods you actually enjoy eating. And, regardless of what course you choose, do not expect to lose 10 lbs. a week like the people on a certain TV reality/game show, because it ain’t gonna happen. Much more could be said about adopting a long-term vision of your health, but in the interest of time, let’s move on to the final point.

And here’s where we may veer slightly from common financial orthodoxy — and for that reason, this strategy may seem to contradict the previous one. The advice is this: stay on top of your portfolio and make changes when your gut tells you so. In other words, do not take the Ronco rotisserie oven approach advocated by many financial advisors — “set it and forget it.” This is a recipe for ruin, financially or nutritionally. Just like it’s important to stay informed about the sectors where your investments lie, as well as the individual companies, funds, etc. — it’s likewise important to monitor nutritional news and trends.

Thank God you have nutritionnewsandreviews.com!

Seriously though, if you eat a certain food every day that you understand to be healthy — say, sushi — and, oh I don’t know, a massive nuclear reactor explodes and melts down over in Japan, spilling huge quantities of radioactive isotopes into the sea, then you might want to trade some of your sushi for turkey or catfish, at least until the situation improves. Unfortunately, few such swaps are going to be even-steven, nutritionally, so you also need to keep tabs on where your shortfalls (i.e., omega-3s) may occur and do your best to cover them with other foods or supplements.

Do you have another proven strategy not mentioned here? Please share.

      

Actual atmospheric colors may vary slightly.

Editor’s note: The map above is not accurate in terms of the “RAD” levels indicated. It does, however, more or less accurately depict the path radiation is taking as it circumnavigates the globe.

Just a quick update here, regarding the Fukushima disaster and its impact on the U.S. mainland — according to a report in the Bay Citizen (local San Francisco-area paper) this past weekend, radioactive iodine has been measured in rain water at 181 times the safe level permitted in drinking water.

And, needless to say, since the vast majority of drinking water comes from rain, this is terrible news.

But perhaps even more concerning, even to those living thousands of miles away, is this passage in the article:

“Radiation falling with rain can cover grass that is eaten by cows and other animals. It can also fall on food crops or accumulate in reservoirs that are used for irrigation or drinking water. Seafood can also be affected.”

Seeing as though California is one of the nation’s most relied-upon sources of food — namely fruits, vegetables and nuts — the impact of this radioactive contamination could be very widespread indeed.

Again, we’re not mashing the PANIC BUTTON here, just saying … now more than ever is the time to seek food produced close to home — or ideally at home in your own garden. Unfortunately for those on the west coast, the opposite may now be advisable, and this may be easier said than done.