Nutrition Myth of the Day: Canola vs Coconut Oil

In the brouhaha regarding all things corn, canola oil sometimes gets confused with it's lookalike, corn oil. Canola- it's not a fancy name for corn oil, it's an acronym standing for "Canadian Oil, Low Acid". And it's made from rapeseed. Rapeseed just wasn't the best name for marketing purposes, as you can imagine.

I have recently heard that there is some movement towards using coconut oil as a cooking oil substitute because it is a) not from corn and b) good for digestion.

Here's something that's not good for your digestion OR your heart....Coconut oil has approximately 11.8 grams of saturated fat per tablespoon, compared to approximately 1g per tablespoon for canola oil or 1.9g per tablespoon for olive oil. Saturated fat is the "bad" fat- it's the fat found predominately in animal fats. The Daily Reference Value for saturated fat is between 20-36g per day. Three tablespoons of coconut oil and you're pretty much done for the day!

Bottom Line: You're better off using actual lard, in terms of saturated fat content (which is arguably the most important consideration when choosing a cooking fat). It only has 5g of sat fat per tablespoon (source for all nutrient data: USDA National Nutrient Database). Horrifying, no?

I leave you with a quote about palm oil, another high sat fat vegetable oil, from Greg Crister's Fatland: How Americans Became the Fattest People in the World:

"There was one other thing: Palm Oil was such a highly saturated fat that its proponents secretly touted it as 'cow fat disguised as vegetable oil'".

Reader Question: Raisins-smart choice or concentrated blobs of sugar for my toddler?

I have a reader! With questions! Here goes....

To find out how much sugar raisins have, I consulted the USDA's National Nutrient Database, which is a great source for finding out nutrition facts, especially for unlabeled goods like fresh produce. They also have nutrient facts for packaged goods.

Raisins wind up being approximately 60% sugar by weight. As a comparison, apples are 10.39% sugar by weight, bananas are 12.23%, and oranges are roughly 9.14%. So, they do look like concentrated blobs of sugar.

They also have less fiber than the fruits listed above (listed here in typical serving sizes):

small box raisins: 1.6g dietary fiber
medium apple w/ skin: 4.4g dietary fiber
medium peeled banana: 3.1g dietary fiber
medium peeled orange: 3.4g dietary fiber

However, I'm torn about telling anyone that feeding their child a whole food is a bad idea. Are there far worse things out there? Yes, of course. Do little kids love raisins because they are so sweet? Probably. Am I going to food police raisin eating? HECK, NO. I'll beat the moderation drum. Raisins as a snack or treat, and as part of a well balanced diet, are great. Personally, I believe that a child who thinks of fruit as a snack (and not chips, cakes or other highly processed snack foods) is being set on a path that encourages healthy eating for life.

Basically, I am Team Raisin. And Team Apple and Team Banana and Team Orange. Anytime your child eats a fruit or a vegetable, I am cheering for you.

Finally, I am happy to answer questions to the best of my knowledge, so please feel free to email me (changethewayweeat@gmail.com).

More on Smart Choices

Seems like I am not the only one with Froot Loops on the brain....Mark Bittman chimes in on his blog, Bitten.

The Great Froot Loop Debate

Lately, all I can think about is FROOT LOOPS. I've mentioned the Smart Choices Labeling Program before, but it's gotten under my skin again after an article in the NYT (For your health, Froot Loops). In it, Eileen Kennedy, the Dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University and the President of the "Smart Choices" board, defends the inclusion of Froot Loops in this way:

“You’re rushing around, you’re trying to think about healthy eating for your kids and you have a choice between a doughnut and a cereal,” Dr. Kennedy said, evoking a hypothetical parent in the supermarket. “So Froot Loops is a better choice.”

I am deeply concerned by this line of reasoning. What really confuses me is that the Smart Choice program itself states the intention of the program in the first paragraph on its own website as follows:

"No matter where you shop or what brands you buy - the Smart Choices Program, a new front-of-pack nutrition labeling program, helps shoppers make smarter food and beverage choices within product categories in every supermarket aisle."

There it is: WITHIN product categories. While you can always argue that Froot Loops has a place in a healthy diet under the umbrella of "moderation" and "as part of a healthy diet", the "Smart Choices" program was designed to help you choose a "smarter" (presumably, healthier) option within whatever category you are considering. If you are a mother standing in the cereal aisle, you have already decided to buy cereal, and doughnuts aren't part of the equation. And the "Smart Choices" program is designed to help you identify a "smarter" choice among the cereals you are faced with when you stand in front of that great wall of cereal. Cereals: That is the product category. That the defense of this program has to include a hypothetical situation involving doughnuts (from a different supermarket aisle entirely) is a red flag. It's not called the "It's Better than a Doughnut" program. I agree with the comment made by Walter Willet, chairman of the nutrition department of the Harvard School of Public Health, in the NYT article...these ARE horrible choices.

Equally unnerving are Dean Kennedy's comments that consumers "don’t want to be told ‘You must do this". Yes, I am sure that is the case, and no doubt why the program is called "Smart Choices" and not "You must eat this". My issue is that, while of course no one wants to be told what to do or eat, people DO seem to want some guidance in the grocery store, or these food companies wouldn't be lining up to pay up to $100,000 a year to be included in such a program. Obviously, food companies want you to eat what they are selling. But why is such an esteemed nutritionist backing this program?

Is telling people what they want to hear, instead of the truth, what we stand for at Friedman? I surely hope not.