Your already busy week just go busier when you found out your boss assigned you to give a company-wide presentation… tomorrow.

The next thing you know, you’ve eaten half a bag of M&Ms.

You have a long drive ahead of you and you’ve already played through all your podcasts and listened to your favorite playlists. A stop at a gas station for some chips and candy will surely make the time go by faster.

Your child just used your favorite lipstick to decorate your freshly painted walls. This day deserves a good helping of that ice cream in the freezer.

We’ve all been there before. Whether we’re stressed, bored, upset or even happy, our emotions can determine our food choices. Often, when these emotions hit, we’re not grabbing for the carrots or apple, either.

Using food as a source of comfort—otherwise known as emotional eating—may seem harmless and, well, comforting. But when food becomes the main strategy for trying to manage our emotions, we’re missing the mark and forming an unhealthy relationship with food while we’re at it.

In fact, the majority of our overeating is actually caused by emotions.

When we emotionally eat, we’re eating for reasons other than physical hunger. It’s important to remember that no matter how hard we try to satisfy our emotional hunger with food, food is only capable of satisfying our physical hunger.

When we try to fix our emotions with food, the food choices are typically poor, the portion size often too large, and—because food can’t get rid of the initial emotion—we’re left with the same emotion on top of a sense of guilt or frustration for eating more than we wanted to in the first place. That’s not a winning combination.

The first step in combating emotional eating is by recognizing it.

Physical hunger will come on gradually, and you can typically postpone eating for a while. On the other hand, emotional hunger comes on suddenly, feels urgent and gives you specific cravings, such as pizza, ice cream or chocolate.

While an apple might not sound appealing when you’re emotionally hungry, an apple or any other food usually can satisfy your physical hunger. So when you’re thinking about eating, ask yourself the simple question, “Am I hungry enough for an apple?”

As you finish eating, you’re more likely to stop eating once you’ve satisfied your physical hunger. Emotional hunger likely would leave you eating more than you normally would, with an uncomfortably full feeling afterwards.

Once you’ve identified the difference between these two types of hunger, it’s easier to find alternative ways to handle the emotion.

Learning to deal with our feelings without food is a new skill that—like anything new—takes time and practice. Start by making a list of alternative things you could do to subdue your emotions when you get a craving for your favorite comfort food.

This might look like taking a walk, calling a friend, doing something productive around the house, such as cleaning or organizing, squeezing a stress ball or taking a few deep breaths at your office desk. Doing something to take your mind off whatever is causing the emotion will help distract you and reduce the food cravings.

In case you get a sudden and strong urge to eat something that can’t be resisted, try to have on hand some healthier, comfort foods. For crunch, this could be nuts or a piece of fruit. For something sweet, try trail mix with dark chocolate chips.

And to avoid mindlessly working your way through an entire bag of potato chips, prepare smaller portions of comfort foods to have at the ready.

Most importantly, as you eat, being mindful of what you’re eating will help you be more aware of why you’re eating in the first place. This will help keep you from overeating and having the post-eating guilt.

Emotions are going to happen, but it’s how we manage them that will help us become more emotionally and physically healthy.

We’re well over a month into the New Year, and in the past month, social media, Pinterest, and magazines have bombarded me with salads, diet-friendly this, sugar-free that, and snacks that are low in all the things we’re supposed to eat.

I usually don’t mind this overabundance of healthier options – whether over the top or not – because, hey, sometimes I find some good recipes to try! Plus, I love it when people start to focus on making more nutritious choices.

But this year, I’ve been seeing a little bit too much of diets attached to the recipe name, such as “Cleansing Apple Smoothie” or “Whole30 Vegetarian Power Bowls.”

The recipe that really took me over the top was when I recently saw a description for Coconut Flour Cookies. After the description listed the “scrumptious peanut butter and chocolate nestled into each cookie,” it listed that they were also Paleo, low-carb, gluten-free, and dairy-free. They were described as being “delicious and healthy and come without regrets.”

But they’re still cookies! Does anybody else see the irony in this?

Just because the coconut cookies check the boxes on a large majority of dietary restrictions or diets right now, does not inherently make them healthy. Whether a cookie is advertised as being diet-friendly or not, it’s still a treat that should be enjoyed sparingly.

Recipes and foods can list all kinds of catchy phrases or words to persuade you they’re “healthy,” which somehow makes them better than other foods. Here are some key words to watch out for that are used to grab your attention – but often may not mean much at all in terms of your long-term health. (continue reading…)

When I first started my journey to become a registered dietitian, I had no idea I was getting into a field that would change and evolve as much as it does. Sure, my biochemistry and human metabolism notes are probably still relevant, but it seems like every other recommendation and guideline has been turned upside down.

Let’s take, for example, the low-fat craze of the 90’s. Remember those popular 100-calorie packs of refined grains advertising their low-fat contents (and the obvious fact that they only had 100 calories)? It doesn’t take long to start making a list of all the foods that started popping up on the shelves (and possibly in your home) that boasted being “low-fat,” “reduced-fat,” or even “fat-free.” You name it, it was probably out there: Fat-free salad dressings, cheese, frozen yogurt, candy. But does that make these foods “healthy?” According to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) definition of the food claim “healthy,” it does. Or at least did.

Twenty years ago, fat had become a villain and consumers wanted nothing to do with it. While the dietary guidelines emphasized saturated fat as the main culprit, most consumers assumed if one fat was bad, all fats were bad and should be avoided. Therefore, fat was replaced with carbohydrates. Instead of focusing on whole grains, fruits, and vegetables (which are all good carb options!), the public deemed refined grains as good replacements, too.

Pretzels were good, but nuts were considered bad. Today this almost sounds absurd, but 20 year ago it was a different story. In order to use the claim “healthy” on the front of a package, the food had to meet the FDA’s criteria of being low in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium with at least 10% of the daily value of one or more of vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein, or fiber.

Up until September of last year, that was still the definition of the “healthy” food claim. The foods we now would consider “healthy,” like nuts and avocados, couldn’t be marketed as such due to their high fat content (albeit “healthy” fat). Yet, other foods were still able to use the claim that hardly seemed appropriate with the evolving evidence and new dietary guidelines in place.

With the possible change of the Nutrition Facts Label and a push back from the popular Kind bars who used the phrase “healthy and tasty” for one of their nut-based granola bars, the FDA is now declaring it’s time to redefine what “healthy” means.

Rather than focusing on the amount of fat, a new guidance has been released – until a permanent change in the definition can be made – that focuses on the type of fat in the product. Manufacturers may now use “healthy” on labels if the item meets any of the following criteria in addition to the other criteria for the claim: 1) it is not low in total fat, but has a fat profile made up of mostly monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats or 2) contains at least 10% of the daily value of potassium or vitamin D.

In the meantime, the FDA is asking for public input until April 26^th on what “healthy” should mean and how consumers understand the “healthy” food label claim before they make a definite change to the claim. For some, this may mean looking past the nutrients. Perhaps it means looking at what the food doesn’t contain instead, such as artificial ingredients or sugar.

Whatever is decided, it may take years until a new definition of the “healthy” claim is released. In the meantime, it’s important not to judge a food on its label alone. What may be “healthy” for one person, may not be for another person depending on his dietary needs. Rather than focusing on the marketing claims or captions on the front of the package, look at the ingredient list and Nutrition Facts Label to make an informed decision for yourself on whether that item can fit into a balanced, healthy diet that’s right for you and your family.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been a popular topic of debate in the news for several years now, but just this year, it’s seen more attention in the media and has been gaining momentum.

First it started with Vermont, who was the first state to pass a law requiring all products containing GMOs to be labeled, beginning in July of 2016.

But then, just last week, President Obama signed a bill that requires all states to have a label of some kind on foods that have been genetically modified, overturning the Vermont’s law, in a way to prevent each state from have a piece-meal of different labeling laws.

Of course, this was a bill of heated debate. While some argue this unnecessarily creates a fear in the consumer and will increase food costs, others believe consumers have the right to know what’s in their food.

I think it’s safe to say nobody knows the answer. Like anything debatable, there are pros and cons. But it’s also safe to say that it’s a term few actually understand. Consumers have gained a vague fear of GMOs without even knowing why, simply because of what they’ve heard through the media and opinionated sources.

We do have a right to know what’s in our food, but it’s also important to have a good understanding of what that label means in order to form our own opinions.

Genetic modification is a process of taking genes from plants, animals, insects, or bacterium and transferring them into another species for a desired outcome. Rather than breeding plants or animals the traditional way, which took years, the discovery of genetically modifying organisms made it much faster to get the desired result.

GMOs made their first appearance in the mid-1990s as a way to do good – when researchers found a way to genetically modify rice to resist the floods in Eastern India. Rather than losing acres of crops, the modified rice survived the harsh conditions and was able to provide food for millions.

Several more possibilities have been developed since, such as Gold Rice, which produces a precursor to vitamin A to help prevent blindness in developing countries.

Since becoming commercially available in 1996, GMOs have taken over much of our food supply with about 90 percent of the corn and soybeans produced in the U.S. being genetically modified. Over half of the sugar produced in the U.S. is genetically modified and 80 percent of processed foods have ingredients made from GMOs. However, very few of the whole foods we eat are genetically modified.

There are as many studies stating that engineered foods are safe to consume as there are studies that say they’re not.

Most of the GM crops in the United States either have been modified to resist herbicides (meaning farmers can spray fields without killing their crop) or have been modified to resist plant-hungry insects by naturally producing an insecticide.

On the plus side, the resistance to herbicides has helped farmers skip the need for tilling their soil, which prevents erosion and helps maintain the nutrients in the soil. With naturally occurring insecticide, crops have less dependency on the sprayed pesticides, which can be toxic to us.

All good things don’t come without their cons, though. Due to the herbicide-resistant crops, more herbicide is being applied, most of which is glyphosate, the main ingredient found in Roundup. Glyphosate, an antibiotic, can hinder our healthy microbiome in our gut and may be a carcinogen for humans.

On top of that, with 20 years of herbicide use and insect-resistance plants, we’re now dealing with herbicide resistant weeds and insects resistant to the GM crops, meaning stronger herbicides and pesticides are being applied to crops.

The struggle is real, and it lies mostly in the gray area. How can we help the most poverty-stricken people – who most need this technology in order to prevent blindness or to stay in business – while on the other hand, realize that the direct benefit to the consumer isn’t as well defined when most of the crops in the U.S. are genetically modified corn and soybeans.

Genetically modified organisms, while developed over 20 years ago, are still in their infancy in research standards. Long-term studies still need to be conducted and more knowledge needs to be gained. For now, the debate continues…

It seems like every time I turn around, there’s a new discovery being made in the field of nutrition, new research being conducted, or a new dietary recommendation out that needs to be followed.

I love that I’m in a field that’s constantly evolving, growing, and changing. But there’s one area that hasn’t changed for over 20 years and has been, not surprisingly, falling behind – the Nutrition Facts Label. Of the many nutrition-related questions I get asked, the Nutrition Facts Label is at the top.

It’s the label that adorns every packaged food item, informing you of everything from the serving size and calories to the percentage of vitamin A found in your bag of potato chips. It can be a confusing label to try to follow with all the numbers and percentages filling up such a small space.

Yet, with all the information you can gather from the label, it still seems to be missing some valuable information.

It’s been a long time coming for the Nutrition Facts label to get a major overhaul. This may be the reason why professionals in the nutrition field gave cheers of delight – myself included – when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in late May that a new look was going to be coming for the label in as little as two years.

Better yet, the changes are ones I completely agree with and believe will help consumers make easier, more nutritious decisions when comparing foods.

So, what changes will be being to see on the label? Here are the major changes and how they’ll affect you and me.

On the left, is the current Nutrition Facts Label. What the revised label will look like is on the right. Source: http://www.fda.gov

(continue reading…)