What you eat during the day will have a significant impact on your energy levels, so it’s vital to eat the right foods at the right times.

Here are the best fatigue-fighting foods to concentrate on.

Steel-cut oatmeal with egg whites

You need some fatigue-fighting food to start your day off and to make sure you have enough energy to carry you through the morning, and you really can’t go wrong with some steel-cut oats and egg whites. The steel-cut oats slowly digest in the body, so they will break down over time rather than all at once. In addition to this, the egg whites will provide protein to the meal, which further reduces the release of glucose into the blood from the oatmeal.

Whole grain crackers with almond butter

As midmorning rolls around, it’s important to feed your body again to carry your energy levels through the morning and into lunch. To prevent that midmorning slump, top off your tank with some fatigue-fighting foods like whole grain crackers smeared with almond butter.

Whole grain crackers digest more slowly than a cereal bar would and the healthy snack provides a long-lasting form of energy.

Salmon spinach salad with an apple

Moving on to lunch, think lower carbs and higher protein. Many people overload with carbohydrates, which leads to a significant energy crash come their gym session.

If you find you always come back from lunch wishing you could take a siesta, that’s a sure sign you’re overdoing carbohydrates.

Instead, go with protein that contains omega-3 fatty acids, such as grilled salmon. Serve this over spinach, which provides a hit of iron, and you have an energy-packed plate in front of you. Since you still should take in a small amount of carbohydrates to set you up for the workout period, toss an apple in for dessert.

The fiber in the fruit will cause a slower release of sugars in the blood so the chance of fatigue from eating this is lower.

Protein shake and a banana

About half an hour before you’re finished work and plan to leave for the gym, it’s time to get another dose of protein with some carbohydrates. Depending on your overall diet strategy, you may want to toss in about half a cup of raw oats into the shake for a slower-digesting form of carbohydrates.

Pair this with a banana for a faster source of carbohydrates to fuel your upcoming workout. Bananas are also a great source of potassium, which will also really help to get your muscles ready for exercise.

Steak with a brown-rice-stuffed pepper

For your evening meal, you don’t want to entirely cut down on carbohydrates unless you didn’t train that day, as you still need them to increase the muscle storage of energy. The trick is choosing carbohydrates that are more complex in nature so they don’t spike and crash your blood sugar levels, leaving you feeling very fatigued throughout the later evening.

Brown rice is a good option paired with a lean protein source like steak. The steak will add iron to the meal, which is essential for keeping a healthy level of red blood cells in the body. Serve this with a red pepper for a boost in vitamin C, which improves the absorption rate of iron for a meal that’s going to fight fatigue head-on.

Protein-packed shake

Before you turn in for the night, feed your body one last time so that it has nutrients in the system before entering the seven-to-eight-hour fast. Focus on lower carbohydrate sources that are high in slow-releasing protein content so that the amino acids can be used for tissue repair. This will leave you waking up fully rested and ready to go the next day.

Mix half a cup of cottage cheese along with a scoop of casein protein powder for the slowest-digesting protein available. Add a tablespoon of peanut butter and half a banana for flavor if you wish to get in some healthy fats that further slow the digestion process.

Source: Shannon Clark, AskMen

The OPAL study investigated the effects of taking omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplements over a two year period on the cognitive function of participants aged 70-80 years.

The number of people with cognitive impairment is rising and it is estimated that by 2040, more than 81 million people globally will have dementia.

Some studies have suggested that high intakes of omega-3 fatty acids, most commonly found in oily fish, are important for the maintenance of good cognitive health in later life.

The OPAL (Older People And omega-3 Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids) study, published today in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, was a randomised controlled trial led by Alan Dangour, Senior Lecturer at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and colleagues.

The study enrolled 867 participants aged 70-80 years from General Practice clinics in England and Wales. Trial participants who all had good cognitive health at the start of the study were randomly assigned into two groups, one of which received fish oil capsules while the other group received a placebo for two years. Cognitive function was assessed at the start and end of the study by trained research nurses using a series of paper and pencil tests of memory and concentration.

After two years, those participants receiving fish oil capsules had significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids in their blood than those participants receiving placebo capsules. However, cognitive function did not change over the course of the study in either group of participants and there was no evidence that the consumption of omega-3 fatty acids had a benefit for cognitive function in older people.

Dr. Alan Dangour urges caution in interpreting these results: “From the data we have collected in the OPAL study there is no evidence of an important benefit for memory or concentration of increased omega-3 fatty acid consumption over a two year period among older people with good cognitive health. However, it is important to keep in mind that poor cognitive function can take many years to develop and although this is the longest trial of its kind ever conducted, it may be that it was not long enough for any true beneficial effects to be detected among this healthy cohort of older people”.

Source: Gemma Howe, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine via EurekAlert

Oils are typically used as a source of fat in cooking, but it’s important to understand the differences between the various oils; some offer health benefits while others are best avoided. We’ve put together a guide to different types of cooking oils and the nutritional value of each.

Good fats

The following oils supply your body with healthy sources of fat and should be used regularly in your cooking.

Olive Oil

Olive oil is one of the more popular oils and it gets a gold star as far as health is concerned. It’s a great source of essential fatty acids, and is a source of monounsaturated fat, making it a great choice for maintaining a healthy heart.

A higher intake of olive oil in your diet will also help to increase the level of antioxidants present in your system, helping to fight free radicals that can cause disease.

Best use: Olive oil has a low smoking (burning) point, so it’s best used in dishes that aren’t cooked, like salad dressing or drizzled over vegetables after they’ve been cooked.

Coconut Oil

Although coconut oil contains a high percentage of saturated fat, these fats are in the form of medium chain triglycerides, which are handled by the body differently than regular saturated fats. Your body will use them immediately for energy and they won’t pose the same health threat as typical saturated fats do.

Best use: Good for frying due to its high smoking point or eaten cold because of the unique flavor it offers.

Fish Oil

Fish oil is a relatively healthy oil because it contains the omega-3 fatty acid precursors EPA and DHA, which work to reduce inflammation throughout the body.

Best use: Fish oil isn’t extracted and sold for cooking the way other oils on this list are; most people take fish oil supplements in capsule form, but you can also get fish oil when you eat fattier varieties of fish such as salmon or mackerel.

Hemp Oil

This particular oil is an extremely good source of essential fatty acids and has a 3:1 ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 essential fatty acids, which is what the body needs for optimal functioning. This oil also helps with the treatment of eczema and is commonly found in facial products.

Best use: This oil is not good for frying, making it best consumed cold or in supplemental form.

Grape Seed Oil

Grape seed oil is a good source of essential fatty acids, with approximately 69% of the fat coming from omega-6 fats and 15% from omega-8 fatty acids. It does contain small amounts of saturated fat, but the benefits from this oil far outweigh the disadvantages. Grape seeds contain polyphenols (which are also found in red wine), which are a form of antioxidant.

Best use: Grape seed oil has among the highest smoking point of any cooking oil, so it’s great for preparing stir-fries and sautés.

Sunflower and Safflower Oil

Sunflower and safflower oils are a combination of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat and contain omega-6 fatty acids. Sunflower oil is also a rich source of vitamin E, so anyone looking to boost their intake will benefit from using this oil.

Best use: These oils have a lighter taste and are great for making stir-fries or salad dressings.

Bad fats

The following oils supply your body with less healthy sources of fat, including saturated and trans fatty acids. Make an effort to reduce or eliminate these oils from your diet whenever possible.

Palm Oil

Primarily used for creating many of the processed foods on the market, palm oil is a reddish color due to its beta-carotene content. It is quite high in saturated fat so it’s best avoided.

Best use: Look for palm oil that maintains its reddish color, since that means it’s less processed and healthier to use (but still not ideal). Use it in the same way as any other cooking oil.

Partially Hydrogenated Canola Oil

Any time you see the words “partially hydrogenated canola oil” on an ingredient’s panel, avoid eating that food or product if you can. While canola oil is a good source of healthy fats, when it goes through the process of hydrogenation, it transforms into trans fats, which increase your risk of coronary heart disease. Partially hydrogenated vegetable oil is commonly found in commercially prepared snack foods as well as fast foods, fried foods and baked goods.

Best Use: None — these should be always avoided.

Cottonseed Oil

While cotton seed oil is made up of 50% omega-6 fatty acids, it contains virtually no omega-3 fatty acids, so the imbalance between these could lead to health problems if not carefully balanced with other sources of fats rich in omega-3. Furthermore, cottonseed oil also contains 24% saturated fat and is very frequently partially or fully hydrogenated, which is extremely bad for your health.

Best use: If you are going to consume cottonseed oil, you are best off using pure cottonseed oil to make a salad dressing.

Source: Shannon Clark, AskMen

Swedish researchers found that men who consumed the most calcium in food were 25 percent less likely to die over the next decade than their peers who took in the least calcium from food. None of the men took calcium supplements.

The findings are in line with previous research linking higher calcium intake with lower mortality in both men and women, the researchers point out in a report in the American Journal of Epidemiology.

While many researchers have looked at calcium and magnesium intake and the risk of chronic disease, less is known about the association between consumption of these nutrients in food and mortality.

To investigate, Dr. Joanna Kaluza of the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and her colleagues looked at more than 23,000 Swedish men who were 45 to 79 years old at the study’s outset and were followed for 10 years. All had reported on their diet at the beginning of the study. During follow-up, about 2,358 died.

The top calcium consumers had a 25 percent lower risk of dying from any cause and a 23 percent lower risk of dying from heart disease during follow-up relative to men that had the least amount of calcium in their diet. Calcium intake didn’t significantly influence the risk of dying from cancer.

Men in the top third based on their calcium intake were getting nearly 2,000 milligrams a day, on average, compared to about 1,000 milligrams for men in the bottom third. The US Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for calcium intake is 1,000 milligrams for men 19 to 50 years old and 1,200 milligrams for men 50 and over.

“Intake of calcium above that recommended daily may reduce all-cause mortality,” Kaluza and her colleagues conclude.

Calcium could influence mortality risk in many ways, they note, for example by reducing blood pressure, cholesterol, or blood sugar levels. For the men in the study, the main sources of calcium in the diet were milk and milk products and cereal products.

In contrast to calcium, there was no relationship between magnesium consumption and overall mortality or deaths from cancer or heart disease. Study participants’ intakes ranged from around 400 milligrams per day to around 525 milligrams; the RDA for magnesium is 420 milligrams for men 31 and older.

This analysis, the researchers say, may have found no effect for magnesium because all of the men in the study seemed to be getting enough of the mineral in their diet. “Further studies are needed in other populations with lower dietary magnesium intakes to address this issue,” they say.

Future research should also look into calcium and magnesium intake from drinking water, they add, which can be a significant source of these minerals.

Source: Reuters Health

Many people who think they’re lactose intolerant may not be.

This suggestion, released Wednesday in a U.S. National Institutes of Health draft consensus statement, could pave the way for more people to eat more dairy products, thus helping to ensure they get adequate nutrition in their diet.

Not enough data is available to estimate the prevalence of true lactose intolerance in the United States, the report stated, but it’s likely the numbers are lower than those reported, said Natalie J. Miller, a member of the panel that issued the draft statement and a graduate student at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, at a Wednesday teleconference.

People with lactose intolerance usually are told to avoid milk and milk-containing products, but this can deprive them of needed nutrients, particularly calcium and vitamin D.

“Particularly in children and adolescents, it’s very difficult for them to receive enough calcium and vitamin D if they avoid diary completely. The same thing may hold true for adults,” said Dr. Frederick J. Suchy, chairman of the conference preceding the statement and professor and chief of pediatric hepatology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City.

“Vitamin D and calcium have important effects, for certain for bone health, and may have implications in other areas such as cardiovascular health, hypertension and maybe even colon cancer,” he said.

Lactose is a sugar found in both human and cow’s milk.

“In order to be absorbed as a nutrient, lactose has to be digested by lactase, an enzyme present in the lining of the small intestine,” Suchy explained. “It’s well recognized that during the period of suckling in the infant, levels of lactase in the intestine are at their highest in order to be able to digest and absorb an important food source.”

By age of 3 or 4, however, lactase production usually decreases, and most people become “lactase nonpersisters.”

“The majority of the world’s population, after weaning and gradually over childhood, lose lactose activity,” Suchy said. “It’s a normal state. Only those people that are largely from northern European descent have retained lactase and have the ability to ingest and process lactose later in life.”

But even most “nonpersisters” aren’t really intolerant to lactose and could consume more dairy products.

It’s first important to distinguish whether symptoms attributed to lactose intolerance — diarrhea, abdominal pain, bloating and flatulence — result from another, potentially serious gastrointestinal condition, such as irritable bowel syndrome or celiac disease.

But, said Suchy, even “if it is a problem with lactose, there may be strategies to cope with that.”

Right now, when lactose intolerance is suspected, “the reflex response oftentimes is to tell the patient to stop taking dairy products completely,” Suchy said. “There may be some patients where that has to be done and whatever nutritional deficiencies could be made up with supplements.”

But for others, alternative strategies like taking small amounts of milk throughout the day or with meals or including yogurt and hard cheeses, especially low-fat hard cheeses, in the diet might be tolerable.

“This is not an allergic condition where if you take a little bit of milk you get sick. That’s quite rare,” noted Dr. Marshall A. Wolf, a panel member and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “This is a quantitative condition and most people, even those with malabsorption, can take a certain amount of milk products without any symptoms, and there is some evidence to suggest that if you take milk products on a regular basis, you can build up your tolerance for milk.”

Source: Amanda Gardner, HealthDay Reporter

“Differences in what you eat after exercise produce different effects on the body’s metabolism,” said the study’s senior author, Jeffrey F. Horowitz of the University of Michigan. This study follows up on several previous studies that demonstrate that many health benefits of exercise are transient: one exercise session produces benefits to the body that taper off, generally within hours or a few days.

“Many of the improvements in metabolic health associated with exercise stem largely from the most recent session of exercise, rather than from an increase in ‘fitness’ per se,” Dr. Horowitz said. “But exercise doesn’t occur in a vacuum, and it is very important to look at both the effects of exercise and what you’re eating after exercise.”

Specifically, the study found that exercise enhanced insulin sensitivity, particularly when meals eaten after the exercise session contained relatively low carbohydrate content. Enhanced insulin sensitivity means that it is easier for the body to take up sugar from the blood stream into tissues like muscles, where it can be stored or used as fuel. Impaired insulin sensitivity (i.e., “insulin resistance”) is a hallmark of Type 2 diabetes, as well as being a major risk factor for other chronic diseases, such as heart disease.

Interestingly, when the research subjects in this study ate relatively low-calorie meals after exercise, this did not improve insulin sensitivity any more than when they ate enough calories to match what they expended during exercise. This suggests that you don’t have to starve yourself after exercise to still reap some of the important health benefits.

The paper, “Energy deficit after exercise augments lipid mobilization but does not contribute to the exercise-induced increase in insulin sensitivity,” appears in the online edition of the journal. The authors are Sean A. Newsom, Simon Schenk, Kristin M. Thomas, Matthew P. Harber, Nicolas D. Knuth, Haila Goldenberg and Dr. Horowitz. All are at the University of Michigan. The American Physiological Society (APS: www.the-aps.org) published the research.

Study Design

The study included nine healthy sedentary men, all around 28-30 years old. They spent four separate sessions in the Michigan Clinical Research Unit in the University of Michigan Hospital. Each session lasted for approximately 29 hours. They fasted overnight before attending each session, which began in the morning.

The four hospital visits differed primarily by the meals eaten after exercise. The following describes the four different visits:

1. They did not exercise and ate meals to match their daily calorie expenditure. This was the control trial.
   They exercised for approximately 90 min at moderate intensity, and then ate meals that matched their caloric expenditure. The carbohydrate, fat, and protein content of these meals were also appropriately balanced to match their expenditure.

2. They exercised for approximately 90 min at moderate intensity and then ate meals with relatively low carbohydrate content, but they ate enough total calories to match their calorie expenditure. This reduced-carbohydrate meal contained about 200 grams of carbohydrate, less than half the carbohydrate content of the balanced meal.
3. They exercised for approximately 90 min at moderate intensity and then ate relatively low-calorie meals, that is, meals that provided less energy than was expended (about one-third fewer calories than the meals in the other two exercise trials). These meals contained a relatively high carbohydrate content to replace the carbohydrate “burned” during exercise.
4. The exercise was performed on a stationary bicycle and a treadmill. The order in which the participants did the trials was randomized.

In the three exercise trials, there was a trend for an increase in insulin sensitivity. However, when participants ate less carbohydrate after exercise, this enhanced insulin sensitivity significantly more. Although weight loss is important for improving metabolic health in overweight and obese people, these results suggests that people can still reap some important health benefits from exercise without undereating or losing weight, Dr. Horowitz said.

The study also reinforces the growing body of evidence that each exercise session can affect the body’s physiology and also that differences in what you eat after exercise can produce different physiological changes.

Next Steps

The research team is now performing experiments with obese people, aimed at better identifying the minimum amount of exercise that will still improve insulin sensitivity at least into the next day.

Source: Donna Krupa, American Physiological Society

The natural salt in food accounts for about 10 percent of total intake, on average, according to the guidelines. The salt we add at the table or while cooking adds another 5 to 10 percent. About 75 percent of our total salt intake comes from salt added to processed foods by manufacturers and salt that cooks add to foods at restaurants and other food service establishments.

Q. What are the health effects of too much salt?

A. In many people, salt contributes to high blood pressure. High blood pressure makes the heart work harder and can lead to heart disease, stroke, heart failure, and kidney disease.

Q. What is the daily recommended amount of sodium for adults?

A. The amount of salt in a food is listed as “sodium” on the Nutrition Facts Panel of food labels. The Dietary Guidelines recommend that the general population consume no more than 2,300 milligrams of sodium a day (about a teaspoon of table salt). Most food labels shorten the word “milligrams” to “mg.”

Some people are more sensitive to the effects of salt than others. The guidelines also recommend that, in general, these populations consume no more than 1,500 milligrams. These populations include:

• African Americans
• People with high blood pressure, kidney disease, or diabetes
• People who are middle-age or older

The exceptions to this are people whose doctors have put them on a diet that requires even less sodium because of a medical condition. Always follow your doctor’s recommendation about how much sodium you can have daily.

Q. What steps can I take to lower my salt intake?
A.

• Eat more fresh fruits and vegetables.
• Consume foods that are rich in potassium. Potassium can help blunt the effects of sodium on blood pressure. The recommended intake of potassium for adolescents and adults is 4,700 mg/day. Potassium-rich foods include leafy, green vegetables and fruits from vines.
• Flavor food with pepper and other herbs and spices instead of salt.
• Choose unsalted snacks.
• Read food labels and choose foods low in sodium.

Q. How can I tell if a food is low in sodium or high in sodium?

A. The Nutrition Facts Panel that appears on food labels also lists the “% Daily Value” for sodium. Look for the abbreviation “%DV” to find it. Foods listed as 5% or less for sodium are low in sodium. Foods listed as 6% to 20% contain a moderate amount of sodium. Anything above 20% for sodium is considered high. Try to select foods that provide 5% or less for sodium, per serving.

Q. Are salt substitutes safe?

A. Many salt substitutes contain potassium chloride, which could be harmful to people with certain medical conditions, such as diabetes, kidney disease, and heart disease. Check with your doctor before using salt substitutes.

Q. What is FDA’s role in regulating salt?
A.

• Salt is regulated by FDA as a “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) ingredient. A GRAS substance is one that has a long history of safe, common use in foods, or that is determined to be safe based on proven science. These substances need not be approved by FDA prior to being used.

• FDA requires that sodium content be stated on food labels. FDA has implemented several labeling requirements related to sodium content of foods.
• FDA sets criteria for nutrient-content claims that manufacturers make about foods. Examples are “low sodium” and “reduced in sodium”.
• FDA doesn’t have regulatory authority to require manufacturers to change the amounts of salt in processed foods at this time, but the agency is conducting research in this area. In 2007, the Center for Science in the Public Interest submitted a Citizen’s Petition to FDA requesting that the agency make changes to the regulatory status of salt, including requiring limits on the amount of salt in processed food. In November 2007, FDA held a public hearing in College Park, Md., on the agency’s policies regarding salt in food, and solicited comments from the public about future regulatory approaches.

Q. What was the outcome of FDA’s public hearing on salt?

A. The public comment period ended in August 2008, and the agency is reviewing comments. FDA is also a sponsor of an Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on reducing sodium intake, which is due out in 2010. IOM has convened a committee to review and make recommendations about various ways to reduce salt intake. The strategies under consideration include actions by food manufacturers, by public health professionals and consumer educators, and at the government level, such as special initiatives and regulatory options.

Source: U.S. Food and Drug Administration

It goes like this: A client looking to lead a healthier life hires me, a nutritionist, to help him improve his diet. I analyze what he’s been eating, factor in his food preferences, and together we create an eating plan that fits his lifestyle and goals. Soon after, he’s noticeably leaner and more energetic–a happy customer.

That’s when the trouble starts. After a coworker asks him for the details of his diet, my client suddenly finds himself in a heated interrogation. Doesn’t your nutritionist know red meat causes cancer? And that potatoes cause diabetes? Shouldn’t he tell you to eat less salt, to prevent high blood pressure?

The upshot: Myths just made my job a lot harder. That’s because nutrition misinformation fools men into being confused and frustrated in their quest to eat healthily, even if they’re already achieving great results. Thankfully, you’re about to be enlightened by science. Here are five food fallacies you can forget about for good.

Myth 1: “High protein intake is harmful to your kidneys.”

The origin: Back in 1983, researchers first discovered that eating more protein increases your “glomerular filtration rate,” or GFR. Think of GFR as the amount of blood your kidneys are filtering per minute. From this finding, many scientists made the leap that a higher GFR places your kidneys under greater stress.

What science really shows: Nearly 2 decades ago, Dutch researchers found that while a protein-rich meal did boost GFR, it didn’t have an adverse effect on overall kidney function. In fact, there’s zero published research showing that downing hefty amounts of protein–specifically, up to 1.27 grams per pound of body weight a day–damages healthy kidneys.

The bottom line: As a rule of thumb, shoot to eat your target body weight in grams of protein daily. For example, if you’re a chubby 200 pounds and want to be a lean 180, then have 180 grams of protein a day. Likewise if you’re a skinny 150 pounds but want to be a muscular 180.

Myth 2: “Sweet potatoes are better for you than white potatoes.”

The origin: Because most Americans eat the highly processed version of the white potato–for instance, french fries and potato chips–consumption of this root vegetable has been linked to obesity and an increased diabetes risk. Meanwhile, sweet potatoes, which are typically eaten whole, have been celebrated for being rich in nutrients and also having a lower glycemic index than their white brethren.

What science really shows: White potatoes and sweet potatoes have complementary nutritional differences; one isn’t necessarily better than the other. For instance, sweet potatoes have more fiber and vitamin A, but white potatoes are higher in essential minerals, such as iron, magnesium, and potassium. As for the glycemic index, sweet potatoes are lower on the scale, but baked white potatoes typically aren’t eaten without cheese, sour cream, or butter. These toppings all contain fat, which lowers the glycemic index of a meal.

The bottom line: The form in which you consume a potato–for instance, a whole baked potato versus a processed potato that’s used to make chips–is more important than the type of spud.

Myth 3: “Red meat causes cancer.”

The origin: In a 1986 study, Japanese researchers discovered cancer developing in rats that were fed “heterocyclic amines,” compounds that are generated from overcooking meat under high heat. And since then, some studies of large populations have suggested a potential link between meat and cancer.

What science really shows: No study has ever found a direct cause-and-effect relationship between red-meat consumption and cancer. As for the population studies, they’re far from conclusive. That’s because they rely on broad surveys of people’s eating habits and health afflictions, and those numbers are simply crunched to find trends, not causes.

The bottom line: Don’t stop grilling. Meat lovers who are worried about the supposed risks of grilled meat don’t need to avoid burgers and steak; rather, they should just trim off the burned or overcooked sections of the meat before eating.

Myth 4: “High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is more fattening than regular sugar is.”

The origin: In a 1968 study, rats that were fed large amounts of fructose developed high levels of fat in their bloodstreams. Then, in 2002, University of California at Davis researchers published a well-publicized paper noting that Americans’ increasing consumption of fructose, including that in HFCS, paralleled our skyrocketing rates of obesity.

What science really shows: Both HFCS and sucrose–better known as table sugar–contain similar amounts of fructose. For instance, the two most commonly used types of HFCS are HFCS-42 and HFCS-55, which are 42 and 55 percent fructose, respectively. Sucrose is almost chemically identical, containing 50 percent fructose. This is why the University of California at Davis scientists determined fructose intakes from both HFCS and sucrose. The truth is, there’s no evidence to show any differences in these two types of sugar. Both will cause weight gain when consumed in excess.

The bottom line: HFCS and regular sugar are empty-calorie carbohydrates that should be consumed in limited amounts. How? By keeping soft drinks, sweetened fruit juices, and prepackaged desserts to a minimum.

Myth 5: “Salt causes high blood pressure and should be avoided.”

The origin: In the 1940s, a Duke University researcher named Walter Kempner, M.D., became famous for using salt restriction to treat people with high blood pressure. Later, studies confirmed that reducing salt could help reduce hypertension.

What science really shows: Large-scale scientific reviews have determined there’s no reason for people with normal blood pressure to restrict their sodium intake. Now, if you already have high blood pressure, you may be “salt sensitive.” As a result, reducing the amount of salt you eat could be helpful.

However, it’s been known for the past 20 years that people with high blood pressure who don’t want to lower their salt intake can simply consume more potassium-containing foods. Why? Because it’s really the balance of the two minerals that matters. In fact, Dutch researchers determined that a low potassium intake has the same impact on your blood pressure as high salt consumption does. And it turns out, the average guy consumes 3,100 milligrams (mg) of potassium a day–1,600 mg less than recommended.

The bottom line: Strive for a potassium-rich diet, which you can achieve by eating a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, and legumes. For instance, spinach, broccoli, bananas, white potatoes, and most types of beans each contain more than 400 mg potassium per serving.

In Defense of Butter

Sure, butter is rich in fat–especially the saturated kind. But most of this fat is composed of palmitic and stearic acids. Research shows these saturated fatty acids either have no effect on your cholesterol or actually improve it. Not enough to convince you that butter–in moderation, of course–isn’t a dietary demon? Keep reading.

One pat of butter contains just 36 calories, and the fat it provides helps you feel full longer.

Butter is one of the top sources of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a natural fat that’s been shown to fight cancer.

Studies show the fat in butter improves your body’s ability to absorb vitamins A, E, D, and K. So a pat of butter on your vegetables actually makes them healthier (and tastier).

Source: Men’s Health Magazine

Unfortunately, there are a number of calorie counting myths that people fall for that will cost them results in the long run. By making yourself aware of these myths, you can be sure that they won’t to affect your progress.

Here’s what you need to know about calorie counting myths.

Myth 1: There are negative-calorie foods

One major calorie counting myth that circulates is that certain foods actually cause the body to expend more calories digesting them than they provide. The belief is that if you eat these foods, they will actually cause more weight loss than if you hadn’t eaten them in the first place.

Reality: While there are certainly foods that provide very few calories, especially once you factor in their dietary fiber content, there are no foods that will put you in a negative calorie balance.

Myth 2: If you count carbohydrates, you don’t need to count calories

With so many people turning to low-carbohydrate diets to lose weight, some are starting to believe that if they count carbs, they don’t need to monitor calories. Often, these individuals will feast on foods high in protein and fat such as steak, bacon, mayonnaise, and eggs, thinking that they’ll still lose weight quickly. This is a calorie counting myth that must be debunked.

Reality: If you cut out an entire macronutrient such as carbohydrates, this usually will automatically reduce your entire calorie intake. You still must be mindful of total calories though, because if you take in more than you burn, your body will still synthesize body fat.

Myth 3: Reduced-fat foods always have fewer calories

On the other side of cutting out carbohydrates you have the belief that choosing food products labeled “low fat” will always reduce the number of calories found in them.

Reality: In many cases, the manufacturers of these products actually add more sugar to the food to increase the taste because of the removal of the fat content. Often this will bring the calories up so they are on par with the regular version, or in some cases the calories may be even higher.

Myth 4: Your body burns more calories on low-carbohydrate diets

The fourth calorie counting myth is that there is some magical property to low-carbohydrate diets that causes the metabolic rate to speed up so weight loss is experienced at a faster pace.

Since many people do see good results from low-carb diets, this myth seems to perpetuate itself over time.

Reality: The primary reason why many appear to have so much success with low-carbohydrate diets is because of the drastic water-weight loss right from the start. This rapid loss is what’s most often noticed, making it seem like a very superior diet plan to follow.

In actuality, the metabolic rate tends to slow down most on low-carbohydrate diets because carbohydrates have the biggest influence on the thyroid gland.

Myth 5: If you exercise enough, you don’t have to count calories

Finally, the last calorie counting myth is that if you’re exercising enough, you don’t need to count calories. Often individuals who feel dragged down by regulating their calorie intake will attempt to lose body fat simply by training more.

Reality: Increasing your activity levels will cause the body to burn more calories and help in terms of total weight loss, but it’s important to keep in mind that the body can only handle so much exercise. At some point, it’s going to have difficulty recovering and if overtraining sets in, fat loss will stop.

Some men who have high amounts of muscle mass and a fast metabolism may get away with not regulating their calorie intake to a large extent, but there still must be some degree of moderation taking place. How much will depend on each individual.

Is raw always best?

Most nutritional scientists will agree that eating vegetables raw is the most efficient way to preserve vitamins, minerals and other important nutrients, but is raw always best? It appears the answer is no. A study published last year in the British Journal of Medicine followed 198 subjects who adhered to a strict raw food diet and found that the participants had low levels of lycopene, an important cancer-fighting antioxidant found in tomatoes, guava, watermelon and red bell peppers. The solution? Heat. Cooking tomatoes for 30 minutes or more has been shown to significantly increase the amount of lycopene compared to raw tomatoes, because the heat breaks down the tomato’s thick cell wall, facilitating the release of this important compound. However, heating isn’t always the solution.

Cooking

On one hand, cooking veggies such as carrots can increase levels of beta-carotene, a carotenoid that is converted by the body to vitamin A, which plays an important role in vision, reproduction, bone growth and regulating the immune system. On the other hand, canned carrots or peas have been shown to lose up to 95% of their vitamin C from cooking. What’s more, delicate veggies such as spinach break down in no time at all, even at low temperatures. The dilemma of whether or not to cook is therefore far from settled. The issue is even further muddied when trying to decide which cooking method is best.

Which cooking method is best?

Steaming, boiling, microwaving, pressure cooking, and frying are all acceptable methods of cooking your veggies, but when it comes to deciding which is best, the truth is that no single method is tops, and the choice is largely left up to the individual. In January of 2008, a report in The Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry concluded that boiling was best for carrots, zucchini and broccoli, better than steaming, frying or even serving raw. Frying was by far the worst, as it can lead to the creation of free radicals — highly reactive compounds that can injure healthy cells. However, a November 2007 study in the same journal found that heating broccoli damages the enzyme myrosinase which is important for the production of sulforaphane, a potential cancer-fighting and ulcer-preventing compound. Making matters even more befuddling, a March 2007 study in The Journal of Food Science touted microwaving as tops, at least when it came to preserving vitamin C. This study found that microwaving and pressure-cooking led to only a 10% loss in vitamin C levels in broccoli, while steaming and boiling caused upwards of a 34% loss. Although — surprise, surprise — a November 2007 study in The Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry found quite the opposite.

The bottom line

There are countless examples of studies that flip-flop on which cooking method is best, depending on which veggies are examined and which specific nutrients are being measured. The point then is to enjoy variety. Food is cooked so it tastes better. If it tastes better, you’ll eat more. The same principle applies to adding spices or fatty dressings to food. According to a May 2008 study in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine, one of the largest barriers to young adults eating their greens was taste. If it tastes better, you’ll eat more (and fat may even improve the absorption of certain nutrients). Does all this uncertainty mean that it’s time to throw your hands up in despair? Maybe, or you can just enjoy the idea of mixing things up. If you need a little more specificity, try a few of these tips:

Food For Thought

• Generally, cook foods in the shortest amount of time possible and at lower temperatures; however, as mentioned before, change things up once in a while.
• If boiling, microwaving or steaming, use minimal amounts of water.
• Unless you’re worried about your weight or other health condition, don’t be afraid to add some fat-rich avocados, full-fat dressings or spices to your veggies, so long as it ensures you eat more.
• Leave edible skins on vegetables when possible (important nutrients may be lurking within).
• Lastly, save the water used when boiling vegetables and use it in soups, stews, gravies, and sauces.