posted
When I hit a size 16, I figured I needed to do something about my weight. So I started keeping a food journal this week.
My calories are a little high, my fat's at the upper limits of the RDA, my fiber could be a little higher, but my sugar is a problem.
I averaged 88 grams of sugar in the last five days. Two of those days I was over 100 grams.
My biggest problem is that it's the foods I thought were healthy that are loaded with sugar. My cereal is 12 g of sugar. My raisin, date, and walnut oatmeal is 13 g of sugar. One of my trail mix bars is 8 g sugar while the other shocked me with 11 g sugar.
But the worst offender? My turkey, cornbread stuffing, and baked apple Lean Cuisine lunch. 27 g of sugar in one lunch.
So I have two questions.
1. The FDA recommends keeping refined sugar intake under 40 g a day. Do I get to cut myself some slack for the natural sugars in my milk and fruit? If so how would I even begin to figure out how much of my sugar is good and how much is bad?
2. Can anyone suggest some easy foods that will get me my fiber without being loaded with sugar? My reduced sugar oatmeal and some of my soups are about the only things that didn't disgust me to see on paper.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Try to cut high fructose corn syrup. Which is, of course, permeated in just about every processed food imaginable, including cereal, granola bars, and instant oatmeal. Try making oatmeal from rolled oats instead of the packets (it'll taste better anyway) and adding your own fruit to it. Make your own granola with rolled oats, nuts, etc, and add your own sweetness so that the serving size has the right amount (I usually use some honey when I make granola, and roast it all in the oven. Mmmmm...).
And most of all, instead of lean cuisine, try making your own meals. Get a crock pot if you don't have time, there's even another thread on lots of ways to make crock pot meals.
This will be a little bit more work than the easy access foods you're used to, but they'll be cheaper and better for you.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I've heard fruit juices can raise your blood sugar way more than just fruit (Because the sugars are so refined), so try to stick with your daily fruits in whole form: apples, oranges, grapes, etc. The natural sugars will be checked with the other stuff fruit has (fiber and the like), which will keep it in check.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ive been a diabetic for a while now and some girls i know were jealous that i ate so healthy, and i told them to look up some diabetic-healthy diets online. that was like 2 years ago. they've lost weight. one thing i would say about some of the stuff you've listed, is a lot of them seem to be from the grains food group. of course those are all the carbohydrates. eh, just some suggestions.
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: Also, I've heard fruit juices can raise your blood sugar way more than just fruit
this is very true. you can say the same for grapes and other fruits that are just mostly juice inside. strawberries are great cuz they arent that juicy and they have a good amount of fiber, as far as fruits are concerned. fruit juice can be healthy, but is usually loaded with sugars/carbs. for a diabetic it makes it really hard to have stuff like that and still eat a normal sized meal.
things you might want to google are Carb Counting and portion size. being able to eye foods and guesstimate about how many carbs are in it is a pretty good skill. just reading the health labels of your favorite foods or looking them up in indexes if it is something from a restaurant can help a lot.
Posts: 813 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
1. The FDA recommends keeping refined sugar intake under 40 g a day. Do I get to cut myself some slack for the natural sugars in my milk and fruit? If so how would I even begin to figure out how much of my sugar is good and how much is bad?
2. Can anyone suggest some easy foods that will get me my fiber without being loaded with sugar? My reduced sugar oatmeal and some of my soups are about the only things that didn't disgust me to see on paper.
I personally wouldn't worry about milk. There are too many benefits to dairy (so long as you are not lactose intolerant) - bone health, teeth, good source of protein, etc.
Fruits are also very good for you and a quick and easy source of fiber. Fruits not only give you the needed vitamins and energy to get through the day but if you keep the skins on you get the bonus of fiber. I believe 4-5 pieces a day is what is recommended.
I would also add some nuts to the mix - they have good fats, vitamins, proteins and fiber. I believe almonds have a high amount of fiber.
I think the problem that many of us run to, myself included, is the easy-to-reach-for-processed-foods. We really don't need them, they're just convenient. But these are the big culprits of refined sugars that our bodies just don't need. So, the more meals that you can make on your own the better.
Posts: 21 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's where some more of my confusion comes in. Let's use my breakfast cereal as an example. I eat about 2 servings (cup and a half) of Kashi Honey Sunshine some mornings. It's 200 calories, 12 g of fiber, and 12 g of sugar. But they use evaporated cane juice and honey as their sweeteners instead of the corn syrup.
Some of what I've read suggests that the unrefined cane juice takes longer to break down and that the disaccaride of the honey doesn't hit the blood stream the same way as refined monosaccarides. I also knew that fiber worked the same way.
So is my cereal still bad for me because it's loaded with sugar, or is it not as bad for me because it's not corn syrup and it's tempered with fiber?
And how does my half cup of milk with its 6g of sugars factor in? [Edit to add] Just saw Cerridwen's post. Not worrying about the milk does seem easier. Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
A small banana - 12 g sugar A small apple - 15 g sugar
Since the recommendation is to have 4-5 pieces of fruit a day, that would come out to more than the 40 g of sugar limit. And this isn't even including vegetables which also include natural sugars and that should be part of one's daily diet.
So, that 40 g limit must mean refined sugars, otherwise I'm in big trouble too! Posts: 21 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to second the recommendation for not eating lean cuisines, or any of the meals that compare. They're expensive in the long run even if you buy them on special at the store, and most of them are relatively high in saturated fat and (as you said) sugars. They're pretty terrible for you, they're just low calorie so they're masqueraded as health food.
For food that isn't low on taste and decently high in fiber, just make some stir fry with brown rice and low sodium soy sauce. Make it in huge portions and divide it into separate meals to save cash.
Also, a cereal like Total is so ridiculously high in fiber and packed with nutrients, it's just plain.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yoplait is evil. It's comparable to soda as far as sugar per ounce. It doesn't even taste like yogurt.
But, Avid, you have to remember that as far as sugar goes the whole point is that refined sugars offer calories without any other nutrition. People aren't usually aware that the nutrition required in order to be optimally healthy is actually somewhat difficult to get everyday, and many people in this country that are overweight are actually malnourished, in terms of vitamins and nutrients.
People who eat too many convenience foods are getting many calories but few nutrients. Refined sugars play a huge part in this. You shouldn't be as concerned about sugar, in and of itself, as you are about eating enough fruits, vegetables, and whole grains (and dairy, to a lesser degree) to meet your daily nutritional needs. The USDA suggests that a person get a minimum of five servings of fruits and veggies a day, but they actually say that nine is preferable. Heck, I'm a vegetarian and I still find it difficult to get between five and nine servings of fruits and veg per day. They also suggest at least six servings of grains, at least half of which are whole grains. Now, the USDA has a margin built in, but you can see that if the average person ate anywhere near what they suggest in those food groups, they would barely have room to squeeze the recommended dairy and meat. If you actually did that, you would find that you were getting most of your calories in a day without consuming much refined sugar at all, and you'd see that there really isn't room in a healthy diet for that sugar without just packing in calories (and, consequently, pounds) that you don't need. That's the biggest reason why they so strongly suggest that we eat so few refined sugars (and grains). They give calories, but that's all. And your body, which is "starving" despite the extra calories you are eating, will continue to crave the nutrients you need, and you will continue to eat.
ETA (I'm tired, so this will be very brief):
quote: Some of what I've read suggests that the unrefined cane juice takes longer to break down and that the disaccaride of the honey doesn't hit the blood stream the same way as refined monosaccarides. I also knew that fiber worked the same way.
They don't work the same way as fiber. Fiber cannot be broken down into glucose in the human body because we don't synthesis the enzyme that does the job (cellulase). As far as mono- versus disaccharides, yes, the monosaccharides do enter the bloodstream first, because they can begin to be converted into glucose and absorbed into the bloodstream immediately upon ingestion (in the mouth). Disaccharides, I believe, are converted in the small intestine, and so therefore "hit the bloodstream" later. But eventually you will still have an insulin spike. It may take longer for some foods to be converted into glucose and transported into the bloodstream, but these are the foods that cause an insulin spike for a longer period of time. The biggest problem with eating food that converts to glucose quickly is that it will be gone quickly, leaving you still hungry and low on energy.
If you're really curious, here is a basic list of mono- and disaccharides:
Mono: glucose: the sugar present in our blood fructose: found in (for example) honey, fruits, and vegetables galactose: found in milk (it is a monosaccharide bonded with glucose in lactose)
Di: sucrose: table sugar maltose: related to digestion of starch lactose: milk
There are also polysaccharides, like starch. But at any rate, you can see that honey, for example, actually breaks down and enters the bloodstream more quickly than plain old table sugar. So does fruit juice.
But, ultimately, all sugar that you ingest will eventually cause your insulin to spike, and insulin is the main hormone responsible for storing glucose as fat. So when you eat too much sugar, it will very likely be stored as fat. In fact, it's more likely to be stored than the fat in a steak if the steak is eaten with no carbohydrates, because the steak will not cause much insulin to be released.
I hope this isn't making it sound like I think sugar or insulin are inherently bad. I'm just trying to explain the process.
And for the record, "unrefined cane juice" is just unevaporated white sugar. So, yeah, it will take a little longer to be converted to glucose than, say, honey, but not any longer than regular sugar.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you're trying to lose weight worrying about what type of sugar you are adding to your food is much less important than just creating a calorie deficit by eating less processed crap and exercising more.
posted
Thanks, PSI. It's hard to tell what out of the piles of advice out there is any good. Especially since most people who put the info out are trying to sell you something.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No kidding. I feel that way all the time. I've gotten to a point where I'm wary of all information because it all has an agenda. If you hear that fish is good for pregnant women, you will inevitably find that the studies done that yielded that result were paid for by some huge fish corporation. Half the time I'm wondering what kind of corruption has occurred in the USDA. I'm a bit paranoid, to say the least.
A good book to read to help you understand our bodies' relationship to glucose is Dr. Bernstein's "Diabetes Solution". Obviously you'd have to read it with the eye of someone who, you know, makes insulin, and the guy obviously has something of an anti-carb bias, but the information in it is invaluable. Check it out.
I wanted to rephrase my last statement to make it more clear. I'm working on about four hours of sleep. "Diabetes Solution" could easily make you tempted to avoid carbs altogether. The low-carb diet he prescribes is somewhat extreme even for a diabetic. I'm not trying to suggest that anyone adopt it.
posted
I thought the rule was 5 fruits and vegetables a day - I might be dating myself with that though :X.
There are a lot of foods that are just so darn good for you that I don't worry about the sugar content. Like blueberries. And spinach. *flexes like popeye* I usually put things like carrot sticks, nuts and fruit in separate containers/baggies when I get home from the grocery store, because I'm too lazy/bleary eyed to do more than grab a few things and throw them into a bag in the morning, but I like fresh stuff.
Posts: 1676 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The low-carb diet he prescribes is somewhat extreme even for a diabetic.
The reason so many humans get diabetes is iis because we are not really genetically designed for the high-carb diet that civilization offers us. Historically, we are meat eaters, largely, with some fruits-and-veggies thrown in there. Fish/shellfish we added about 20,000 years ago, relatively recently, which explains the widspread shellfish allergies, although I love my shrimp/scallops. Grains and refined sugars are really recent, maybe as recently as 10,000 years ago. We haven't had sufficient tiem to adapt to those foods in the amounts that we try to eat them in. In some cases, like the Eskimo and some other Native American groups, they never really started eating a grainy/carby diet at all, until the last 100 years or so. That's why diabetes is so rampant in some of those groups today. The only real "exception" to this rule would be the East Asians, who have developed a much larger pancreas and larger salivary glands to deal with their grain-heavy diet. Even so, they are much shorter than if they ate more animal products. The average American-born Chiense kid is something like 8 inches taller than his parents who were raised in China.
It would probably be possible for humans to become adapted to the high-grain/high-sugar diet eventually. Some people can hack it a lot better than others, as witnessed by the fact that some familes have absolutely no diabetes. My entire extended family of several hundred people is completely diabetes-free, on both parents' side. They don't eat well, but they just don't get diabetes, period. Heart disease, yes, strokes, yes, but diabetes and cancer, pretty much none at all. Their lack of cancer is almost weird. None of them have ever died of it, ever. It makes me glad I did search for my birthfamilies when I turned 18. It's nice to know what you're in for, medically.
Another point I'd like to make is that humans historically have eaten 50-80% fat by percentage of total calories, depending on the environment, and were in excellent health. You do have to pick your good fats. That's a whole other topic. I'm not saying that you can't survive and be healthy on 30-40% fat, but it depends on your genetics. I've been playing around with high-fat, low-carb diets for about a year and half now, and also reading what a lot of high-fat, low-carbers say online in the process of their experiments with it. Some people seem to really need 70-80% fat, to really be at their best. Others do fine with as little as 40-50%. This is anecdotal, but it does seem to match with the fat percentages of native diets as well, which did usually (and still do) vary from about 40-80%.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: The reason so many humans get diabetes
I assume you are only talking about Type II diabetes? Type I is not [edit: primarily] triggered by diet -- the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas die off due to autoimmune problems.
posted
"I assume you are only talking about Type II diabetes? Type I is not triggered by diet -- the insulin-producing cells in the pancreas die off due to autoimmune problems."
Which are themselves diet-related. I can provide links. Would you like some?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not about to back down from the point that both types of diabetes are dependent on diet to be activated. Genetic tendencies cannot, in and of themselves, bring on either type.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
1. Juvenile-onset diabetes is fairly widespread, among many populations.
2. Juvenile-onset diabetes is often fatal without treatment, and indeed was fatal prior to the discovery of modern treatments. Fatal, that is, prior to adulthood.
3. Juvenile-onset diabetes is at least partially genetic.
It's not realistic to say that a disease with a significant inherited component that often kills the person before puberty is entirely inherited. If it were, it wouldn't HAVE a genetic component, unless the mutation just keeps happening over and over in different places and times, and it doesn't. It's a common genetic problem, and it shows up in populations all over the world. The disease has a genetic tendency that has to be activated via environment to fully develop. Diabetes simply isn't a problem among groups of people eating their traditional diets. When they switch to eating lots of refined carbs, they start getting it. It's no great huge leap to assume that a disease of the body's ability to regulate blood sugar would be correlated with eating sugars/carbs in unnatural/refined form.
But I'll dig up some links. Yes, some of them will probably be from the Weston Price foundation site. Do you have a problem with that?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stene LC, Ulriksen J, Magnus P, Joner G. Use of cod liver oil during pregnancy associated with lower risk of Type I diabetes in the offspring. Diabetologia 2000;43:1093-8.
Hypponen, E. Laara, E. Reunanen, A. Jarvelin, M. R. Virtanen, S. M. "Intake of vitamin D and risk of type 1 diabetes: a birth-cohort study," The Lancet, 2001; 358: 1500-03.
Here is the summary of the second study:
" A group of researchers led by Elina Hypponen published a landmark study in The Lancet in 2001 suggesting that intakes of vitamin D over 2000 IU per day in infancy may be able to nearly eradicate type 1 diabetes.24 The study began in Finland in 1966 when over 10,000 infants were enrolled and researchers recorded whether they were supplemented with the then-official recommendation of 2000 IU per day of vitamin D for the first year of life, more than this amount, less than this amount, or were not supplemented at all. They then followed the study participants for over 30 years until 1997, recording which of the participants were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes by that time and which were not.
The benefit associated with vitamin D occurred at the lowest and highest levels of vitamin D intake and at all points measured in between. Children who developed rickets were 2.6 times as likely to develop type 1 diabetes compared to children who did not develop rickets. Compared to infants who did not receive a supplement of vitamin D at all, those who supplemented regularly, most but not all of whom supplemented with 2000 IU per day or more, had an 88 percent reduced risk of type 1 diabetes. Out of those who supplemented regularly, those who received the dose of 2000 IU per day had a further reduced risk of 78 percent compared to those who received a lower dose. Those who received a dose higher than 2000 IU per day had an 86 percent reduced risk compared to those who received a lower dose. Thus, vitamin D administered during infancy appears to exert a powerful protection against type 1 diabetes in amounts that extend from those just sufficient to prevent rickets to those exceeding 2000 IU."
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anyone disputes that many factors can contribute to type 1 diabetes. Diet may play a part in that. One study I'm thinking of suggested that diabetes might be triggered by antibodies against the protein in cow's milk. But if it were found to be true, it would be one tiny piece of a huge puzzle. The causes of diabetes are so widely debated and so poorly understood at this point that for you to sound so sure that you know what you're talking about makes me think that you've actually done a lot less research than you'd like us to believe.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The causes of diabetes are so widely debated and so poorly understood"
Isolated groups of people to this day who can't get access to overly processed foods are pretty much entirely without diabetes, and most of our other killers like heart disease, stroke, etc. I agree that the true causes of Type I diabetes are not perfectly understood. However, it's pretty clear that, if you're eating a diet that you're not genetically suited for, you're much more likely to get it. In addition, it's also clear that a diet that has insufficient Vitamins A and D is also a major culprit, as shown by my studies above. Blame the pharmaceutical and food-processing companies, etc. if you don't read more studies like those above. Extra Vitamins D & A aren't a patentable idea, and, if the population at large really got a hold of that info, they'd probably stop buying overly processed carbs, etc. as much. Certain companies would start to see their bottom line eroded. ONOZ! LOL
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Isolated groups of people to this day who can't get access to overly processed foods are pretty much entirely without diabetes, and most of our other killers like heart disease, stroke, etc.
Dude, it's so hard to make statements like that about isolated groups and diabetes. So many undeveloped nations don't even know enough about the disease to diagnose it. Do you know what diabetes 1 would look like in an area like that? A little kid would mysteriously start losing weight, and, along with a few other symptoms that would largely go overlooked, he or she would continue to lose it until they died. There's a really good chance no one would ever know the cause. Even in America, diabetes 1 frequently goes undiagnosed until the child is really ill and must be hospitalized.
But I must be off. It's my birthday and it's time to open the presents I picked out. Ciao! Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: It's not realistic to say that a disease with a significant inherited component that often kills the person before puberty is entirely inherited.
Sure it is. Did you want a list of such diseases? (Tay Sachs is the textbook example, but there are many others.) Ever heard of recessive genes?
I looked up the actual study (which is somewhat out of date, since there are dozens of related studies in the past 7 years). Yes, getting enough vitamin D did lead to a small (but probably statistically significant, although the sample size was not very large) decrease in the rate of type I diabetes.
I'm still not sure what that has to do with your original assertion about carbs, though.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm still not sure what that has to do with your original assertion about carbs, though."
The processed-carb/grain diet is significantly lower in vitamins D and A (and by vitamin A, I do mean retinol, the most bioavailable form) than the traditional diets it replaces. We really are meat-eaters. The fact that the most grain-dependent societies, the East Asian societies, have developed a larger pancreas and larger salivary glands to deal with the extra carbs is pretty damning evidence that we are not yet fully evolved to easily eat such a diet.
I'm not saying that you can't supplement retinol and vitamin D-3, cholecalciferol, as well as calcium, magnesium, and probably vitamin K, and the B-vitamins as well, and still get pretty good results. However, it helps to know what you are doing with that, otherwise you'll just clog up the sewage system with undigested pills, or overdo it and screw yourself up. Been there, done that. The supplements out there vary greatly in quality, and even when you get good ones, you need to know how much to take. You also need to take them in concert, because they balance each other. Finally, you still need a pretty high-fat diet, and choosing good fats is a whole other thread/book/encyclopedia. If you think choosing good fats is simple, you haven't done your research. I say this because I've heard the "oh, I just take a multi and eat my EVOO, because that's all I need" quite a bit, and from people here, specifically. Banna, I'm talking to you.
Sure it is. Did you want a list of such diseases? (Tay Sachs is the textbook example, but there are many others.) Ever heard of recessive genes?
Did you seriously compare Tay-Sachs to diabetes? OK, look, (and I'm trying to say this delicately) Tay-Sachs is a result of...extreme...genetic...OK. I really don't know how to nicely say "your family tree doesn't fork", but that's the situation. It's a disease of Eastern European Jewry, and that's pretty much it. Diabetes shows up everywhere. It's ubiquitous, and is only non-selected for if the diet allows it. I'm not trying to bust the Jews, they've given us more than their share of great scientists, musicians, entertainers, etc., so forgive me if that's how it's come across.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, actually, Tay-Sachs is also prevalent in French Canadians, Creoles from Louisiana, a certain South African tribe, and, um, I think there's one more.
A better comparison for the point she was making though might be phenylketonuria, which, while more prevalent in some populations than others (as are type I and II diabetes), occurs in all populations and is also autosomal recessive.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Take a look--it's time to start giving yourself and your kids a Vitamin D supplement.
Also, the Vitamin D Council has some thoughts on supplementation, to the tune of about 5,000 IU daily.
Google "sewage treatment pills clog supplements" (without the quotation marks) to see why you should take the liquid or softgel forms of supplements. I'm quite serious. You're not digesting those tablets, peeps.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The AAP has recommended upping the recommended vit. D supplement; however, that recommendation doesn't take into account that sun exposure without sunscreen or protective clothing, with bare arms and face, 15 minutes 3 or 4 times a week, can provide most of that amount.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What kq said. I also wonder if they're considering the Vitamin D (and A) in fortified milk and cereals? I would think it would be difficult to not get enough Vitamin D these days, or is rickets running rampant and I just missed it?
I've never lost sleep over Vitamin D. My kids and I are outside for a couple hours a day. I'm more concerned with the fact that I don't use sunscreen as often as I should. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Traditional tribes generally get/got several thousand IU of Vitamin D daily.
"I would think it would be difficult to not get enough Vitamin D these days, or is rickets running rampant and I just missed it?"
You just missed it. There's no shame in that, you simply haven't done the research. Take a look at The Vitamin D Council. They postulate that subclinical rickets is a widespread chronic disease. They've got some pretty persuasive articles and studies.
I don't recommend getting your vitamins from cereal and pasteurized, homogenized milk. That's like feeding a champion racehorse substandard feed, pointless. Cereal is nasty stuff, I don't recommend it as a regular food. Don't get me started on the pasteurized, homogenized milk. Cereal and crappy milk are an easy copout forced on us by the problems of modern living. There are ways around these things.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, PSI, they say that most kids don't now get enough supplemented foods to get enough Vit. D in that manner. For instance, your kids would have to drink 4 cups of fortified milk a day to get enough from milk alone.
But if you're outside a lot I think you should be fine.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Cereal and crappy milk are an easy copout forced on us by the problems of modern living. There are ways around these things.
steven, it really depends on the quality of cereal. Sure, the most popular cereals sold today are worthless nutritionally, but it is possible to find cereals of excellent quality with dried fruit, seeds, nuts, multiple whole grains integrated, and not very much sugar.
I don't think the tradition of cereal and milk is a bad thing. You just need to make sure you're getting the highest quality available.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually, PSI, they say that most kids don't now get enough supplemented foods to get enough Vit. D in that manner. For instance, your kids would have to drink 4 cups of fortified milk a day to get enough from milk alone.
*nod* A couple of things about that: Yes, one serving of milk is 25% of the daily value. One serving of Cheerios is 10%. But my 7-year-old son, for example, never eats just one serving. When he has Cheerios for breakfast (which is literally about two or three times a month; Cheerios is a special treat at our house because a bowl of cereal with milk is too expensive for the calories and nutrition it yields, IMO) he eats two or three large bowls in one sitting. That amounts to about 4-5 servings. Even my 5-year-old daughter eats two or more adult servings in one sitting. And this may be a generalization, but it seems to me that low-income kids or kids with parents who never cook fresh food are the ones most likely to eat cereal regularly.
It may be that most kids don't get enough fortified foods to get all the Vitamin D that they need in that manner alone, but I would hope that the average child would go outside once a day for at least a few minutes. Do they no longer have recess in the elementary schools? I'm not proposing that a child get all the D they need from milk and cereal. I'm proposing that they have a lifestyle that includes a varied, healthy diet and moderate exercise. Now, I'd be willing to concede that most children don't get that, but I think at that point they have a much bigger problem than Vitamin D deficiency alone.
quote:Originally posted by steven: "But if you're outside a lot I think you should be fine."
You might want to read my links before you go giving medical advice.
Dude, your Vitamin D council link says that 20-30 minutes in the sun yields more vitamin D than a person needs per day. Is that the link you're talking about? Because if you don't agree with their claims you might not want to use them to assert yours.
quote: I don't recommend getting your vitamins from cereal and pasteurized, homogenized milk. That's like feeding a champion racehorse substandard feed, pointless. Cereal is nasty stuff, I don't recommend it as a regular food.
I didn't plan on responding to this, but as it seems that you are talking to me directly, I will, briefly. Don't make the mistake of judging my family's diet/lifestyle; you don't know us at all. But if you're planning on it, I suggest you go back and read the other comments I made in this thread. They should shed at least a little light.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"a bowl of cereal with milk is too expensive for the calories and nutrition it yields, IMO)"
How do you do this calculation, out of curiosity? I'd agree with you that you're probably paying a lot for the calories, but it seems like some cereals pack quite a lot of nutriotional value in terms of vitamins and minerals
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For us, at least, it's the milk. We tend to buy organic milk and it's usually around $6 a gallon. A few cereals can be a good deal, but once you add the milk, it gets really expensive. I discovered this once when my grandmother was visiting. She likes to spoil the kids (and my husband) when she visits by buying them a lot of cereal. We knocked out an entire $3 box of cereal (I think it was 14 oz.) and most of a $6 gallon of milk between the five of us that morning, and we were all hungry an hour later. A 14 oz. box of Cheerios, for example, only has 1400 calories. If you include the recommended serving of milk with each bowl, it adds 40 calories per serving, for a total of 1960 calories per box. That came to just under 400 calories per person. That's about a fifth of our average calorie needs, at twice what I normally pay per meal. I'd rather they got closer to 600 calories at breakfast, although I'm rarely anal enough to count my kids' calories; I just feed them until they stop eating. I usually spend about $5 a meal (averaged between all three meals; snacks are separate) with most of that money going to fresh/frozen produce and with breakfast being the least expensive, so that really threw me off for the whole day, in my mental calculations. I'm not anti-cereal. We have it every once in a while when I'm feeling lazy, and sometimes I'll put some Cheerios or Bran Flakes in a ziploc bag for a snack in the car. As an actual meal replacer, though, it's fairly worthless. But that's why I added the IMO at the end. I realize that my nutritional goals and budgeting may be very different than those of another person. But even if you assume someone is buying regular milk at $3-3.50 per gallon, it's still much more than I'd like to pay for the calories. To get 500-600 calories, I can offer my family oatmeal, a small omelette with green peppers, fresh fruit, and a glass of milk, and spend $3. If I could only get vitamins from cereal, I might think it was worth it, but in my family we eat plenty of vitamin-rich foods that are cheaper and less processed.
This is also the major reason we are vegetarian. I refuse to buy/eat meat from factory farms and anything else would be too expensive, when I can get those nutrients elsewhere and have more money to spend on fresh produce, which is also fairly expensive. But one day I may have my dream farm and then I can go back to eating meat occasionally. It all comes down to budget and nutritional priorities, I guess.
/long-windedness
quote: I'd agree with you that you're probably paying a lot for the calories
I just realized you had already agreed with me about cost, which renders two-thirds or more of my post useless. Oh well.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This might be more like what you were looking for:
Cereal versus Other Foods: A Nutritional Analysis by Me, While Eating a Cupcake
One serving of oatmeal has 1 gram more soluble fiber than Cheerios, which is Cheerios' main claim to fame. Most cereals have no soluble fiber. It also has 5 grams of protein to Cheerios' 3, and has twice as much polyunsaturated fat. Oatmeal costs about 20 cents per serving.
One baby carrot has about twice as much vitamin A as a serving of Cheerios. It would cost about five cents.
Most dark green veggies contain comparable amounts of iron to Cheerios (depending on which studies you read), although it is non-heme iron. I'm not sure what kind of iron is added to Cheerios; I'll have to look that up. But most Americans aren't me; they are eating more red meat than they need, and so have plenty of bio-available iron.
The sun provided more Vitamin D and it's free! African Americans have a harder time getting it from the sun, however.
And so on. All of the nutrients that are added to Cheerios can be found in other food sources, food sources that should be a part of every American's diet. Cereal is probably the only thing keeping many low-income kids from being even more malnourished than they are, because I think the vitamins in fortified cereal may be the only vitamins they get.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dried beans are an excellent source of iron. Dried apricots are a good source as well. We don't eat a lot of red meat but those are regular parts of our diet. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dried beans are an excellent source of iron. Dried apricots are a good source as well.
They are both non-heme sources, but there are ways around that. However, iron is the one nutrient I worry about. The requirements for a vegetarian are at least twice the requirements for someone who eats meat occasionally, since plant iron is so poorly absorbed. We take an iron supplement, but that isn't my preferred method, and I'm currently researching and trying to find a better way to get enough iron.
quote: PSI Teleport... Can I come over for breakfast tomorrow morning???
Sure. I'll put a leaf in the table. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
