SUGAR SHOCK! Blog

USDA Issues Added Sugars Table

Thank you, USDA! Wow! I am impressed.

Our very own United States Department of Agriculture has issued a new online table that lets you look up the added sugars and carbs in 2,041 common foods, the USDA announced in its article, Added Dietary Sugars Are Now Easily Identified..

The list of added sugars--which are defined as those added to foods and beverages during processing or home preparation--include such sweeteners as honey, molasses, fruit juice concentrate, brown sugar, corn sweetener, sucrose, lactose, glucose, high-fructose corn syrup and malt syrup. (Actually, there are many more sweeteners than this so I'm curious to see the full list of sugars listed.)

According to the USDA, American consumers eat about 74 pounds of added sugars per year. This is the figure from the 1999-2002 survey data analyzed by researchers at the BHNRC's Community Nutrition Research Group.

That's comes to about 23 teaspoons of added sugars every day per person--or a whopping 460 nutrient-lacking calories. (Given my research, I suspect that the amount per person is much higher.)

The USDA announcement, Added Dietary Sugars Are Now Easily Identified, notes that this "special interest table" for dietary professionals and others interested in checking for added sugars, was produced by the Nutrient Data Laboratory (NDL), one of six units of the Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center.(BHNRC), headed by nutritionist Joanne Holden.

See the new table at "USDA Database for the Added Sugars Content of Selected Foods."

Tonight's Free Tele-Seminar With Artificial Sweetener Expert

Catch tonight's free tele-seminar, in which artificial sweetener expert and toxicologist Dr. Janet Starr Hull, author of Splenda®: Is It Safe Or Not? and author of Sweet Poison, will tell you all about potentially dangerous artificial sweeteners, from Splenda to aspartame.

Although they've been heavily marketed and touted as safe, Dr. Hull will reveal a number of facts that point to just the opposite.

Janet -- I get to call her that, because we've talked so many times when I was working on my book SUGAR SHOCK! and we've since become quite friendly -- is quite articulate and knowledgeable so come armed with all your artificial sweetener questions.

Here are the details:

DATE:  Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2006

WHAT: 'Are Artificial Sweeteners Such as Splenda A Smart Way to Wean Off Sugar? Are They Safe?'

GUEST: Artificial sweetener expert and toxicologist Dr. Janet Starr Hull, author Splenda®: Is It Safe Or Not? and Sweet Poison, which recounts her nightmarish journey and then delves into its many dangers

TIME: 5:30 pm Pacific / 7:30 pm Central / 8:30 pm Eastern

DURATION: 60 to 90 Minutes

NOTE: We start promptly, according to www.Time.gov.

RAFFLE PRIZES: For those who participate in the call live, we will hold a special drawing for:

- 6 people to receive a 45-minute health/sugar history/consultation session with Connie.

- 2 copies of 'Splenda: Is It Safe Or Not?'

CAN'T MAKE THE CALL? Don't fret. Just like all the other tele-seminars, this is being recorded. To order your download, just go to www.GetReplays.com.

Not signed up yet? Want to spread the word about this exciting, free tele-seminar? Just tell your friends to sign up first at www.KickSugarSpecial.com.

Wake Up, Americans! Diabetes, If Untreated, Is Deadly, But Cutting Culprit Carbs, Losing Weight & Exercising Can Help

A few days ago, a very smart consultant was giving me advice regarding my book SUGAR SHOCK!, and he mentioned that he'd recently been diagnosed as having type 2 diabetes.

What he next said surprised me. He said that up until recently, he wasn't aware of just how dangerous diabetes can be. In fact, he'd many people, and even doctors, being very nonchalant about it and therefore had no idea of its potentially deathly implications.

I'm baffled.

The American Diabetes Association does a magnificent job getting the word out about this disease (even if I don't agree with their lenient stance on sugar and artificial sweeteners).

These days, I thought everyone -- or at least most intelligent, aware adults -- knew that diabetes is deadly.

So, please, wake up Americans!

Diabetes can cut your life short -- there's no doubt about it.

If left unchecked, you could get a heart attack. You could go blind. One of your legs might require amputation. The list goes on and on.

There's a reason why I'm so insistent on telling the world about the importance of losing weight, exercising and the horrific dangers of overconsuming sweets, which could lead to diabetes and other blood sugar related conditions.

But, as I've reported here many times, if you make lifestyle changes, you could keep your diabetes under control. This means you need to exercise and eat right -- including cutting out (or at least curtailing) those culprit carbs and adding lots of veggies, some fruits and quality proteins and fats.

So, please get educated about diabetes, my fellow Americans -- especially those of you who are overweight or obese.

To help out those of you unaware of diabetes dangers, here's some vital information from the American Diabetes Association, dubbed "The Dangerous Toll of Diabetes."

"Diabetes is a group of diseases marked by high levels of blood glucose resulting from defects in insulin production, insulin action, or both. Diabetes can lead to serious complications and premature death, but people with diabetes can take steps to control the disease and lower the risk of complications.

"...There are an estimated 20.8 million people in the United States, or 7.0% of the population, who have diabetes. While an estimated 14.6 million have been diagnosed, unfortunately, 6.2 million people are not aware that they have the disease."

More and more, as our kids and adults take in more sugary beverages and quickie-carb crap, type 2 diabetes is becoming commonplace, too, which, I find, incredibly scary.

Back in School This Weekend

Well, I'm back in school again this weekend at the Institute for Integrative Nutrition (IIN).

As I've mentioned before, this is a very exciting, unique, popular program, which will enable me in June to become certified as a holistic health counselor by the American Association of Drugless Practitioners.

You should hear how thrilled students are about IIN!

This year, the program -- which takes place all day Saturday and Sunday on 10 different weekends over a period of 8 months -- has 1,100 people from around the U.S. and even the world! For example, last night, at a party hosted for us, I met a woman from Costa Rica -- she flies up to New York 10 times just to attend!

Basically, IIN is helping to further educate me while I can still continue my kick-sugar work. The Institute for Integrative Nutrition teaches "life-changing dietary theories that work, whether they are old, new, eastern, western, southern, or northern."

You can read more about the school here.

If you decide to attend IIN yourself, tell them I sent you.

Eat Spuds & You May Have a Higher Diabetes Risk

Ah, pity the poor spuds. They get such flack for being high glycemic. Now they're getting blamed -- from scientists, no less -- for increasing your risk of diabetes, Reuters tells us.

I shouldn't be taking this so lightly, because this is a serious study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Indeed, the research from Harvard scientists sought to explore whether the high-glycemic potatoes increase insulin resistance and the risk of type 2 diabetes. 

The researchers concluded: "Our findings suggest a modest positive association between the consumption of potatoes and the risk of type 2 diabetes in women. This association was more pronounced when potatoes were substituted for whole grains."

Guess we better skip the spuds more often than not. (Darn, they're so good, too.) And french fries -- well, sad to say, but you're opening a whole can of fatty woes by making it a habit to eat them.

So let's hear it for fresh veggies instead of potatoes.

Control Diabetes Better Means You Could Improve Your Memory

We keep on hearing about more and more research showing the link between controlling your blood sugar and having a better memory.

Yet another study, this one in the February issue of Diabetes Care, shows that people with type 2 diabetes who maintain metabolic control have an improved "working memory" -- the kind that lets us keep information in our minds for short periods of time and to finish our day-to-day activities.

"Improving metabolic control and reducing fasting plasma glucose (sugar) levels can lead to an improvement in learning and memory ability," Dr. Christopher M. Ryan, from University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, told Reuters Health. 

As I've said repeatedly, maintaining proper glucose levels means eating right, cutting back on those culprit carbs, exercising, and if need be, taking your meds.

Unite With Parents & "Stir It Up" To Kick Soda Out of the Schools! Take Action Now!

Join a million of us. Stir It Up! And now!

Help us kick those calorie-filled, nutrient-lacking, high fructose corn syrup-laden soft drinks and other empty-calorie foods out of the schools.

Indeed, kudos galore go to Parents Action for Children, a national, non-partisan organization founded by actor /director Rob Reiner to advocate policies that put children and families first.

The group is uniting a million parents across America to Stir It Up!

Let's face it: It's getting sadder by the day.

Only 2% of our nation's kids eat a healthy diet and the number of children who are overweight keeps growing -- it's already nearly doubled in the past 20 years.

And even if a child is normal weight or slim, eating all that junk can harm brain development and even hinder his or her performance in school.

Indeed, as I've been learning for nearly five years while working on my book SUGAR SHOCK!, eating too many sugary foods or Much-Like-Sugar foods -- which most kids do -- can hurt them horribly.

What's more, ultimately, as they grow up, children's huge sugar habit could lead to more than 150 horrific health woes, including diabetes, heart disease, cancer, memory and concentration problems, mood swings, depression and more.

You, as a parent or as a concerned adult, have a duty to help our nation's kids get healthy foods in schools. That means that sodas, candies and or low-quality quickie carbs have no place in our classrooms.

I'm proud to join in this important effort and I urge all of you -- whether you're a parent or not -- to

As the exciting Stir It Up Campaign recommends:

1. First send a pre-written letter now to decision makers (i.e., your senators and representatives) to support Senator Tom Harkin's (D-IA), Senator Arlen Specter's (R-PA), Representative Lynn Woolsey's (D-CA) and Rep. Christopher Shays' (R-CT) bills to get junk food out of our schools. Our children's health depends on it.
2. Take action as a parent and go to the principal's office.
3. Make sure these heads of schools get involved. Principals, you really should get in on the action, too!
4. Get your kids involved, too.

Indeed, as the campagin asserts, "Since children spend most of their waking hours in school, our campaign starts there. With so much junk food in schools and so little opportunity for physical activity, our kids are paying a price with their health.

"Stir It Up is working with educators and school administrators to get soda, candy and other unhealthy foods out of our schools…and physical activity back in. It's a parents' movement that will put children first!"

By the way, every month, 100 people who join our campaign by taking action will win the new DVD from Parents' Action for Children: "Foods and Fitness Matter: Raising Healthy, Active Kids."

Read about this important endeavor:

The Stir It Up Campaign We're bringing together parents across the country who will take action to: Tell Congress to get the junk food out of our schools Get students, parents, and school administrators involved in getting junk food out and more physical activity into our schools Incorporate healthy eating and physical activity into the lives of today's busy families

Now spread the word!

Read on to see the letter that's already written for you. All you need to do is e-mail it to those legislators listed above.

Thirsty? Check Out The Waters Out There

Interesting articles on iVillage.com about waters.

First off, I recommend checking out "10 Tricks for Getting Enough Water," which offers some valuable tips on how to remember to drink up--with water, of course.

Then, there's a piece about trendy, enhanced waters. The article, " More Than Hydration: Enhanced Waters: Experts weigh in on trendy health waters," is enough to make you want to start savoring different waters.

I'm certainly intrigued enough to want to find out if I detect a taste difference between the various brands such as Glaceau's Smartwater, Apollinaris (Germany), Spa (Belgium) and VOSS (Norway).

My only concern is that the story mentions flavored waters such as Fruit2O, which is sweetened with Splenda. You see, I'm just not a fan of artificially sweetened anything, especially water, because of potential harm that could result.

To learn more about the dangers of Splenda and other artificial sweeteners, you'll want to participate in my free, tele-seminar next Tuesday evening, February 28 with toxicologist/nutritionist Dr. Janet Starr Hull. The author of Splenda: Is It Safe?, Dr. Hull will give you the lowdown on how these fake sweeteners could affect you.

To join us in this exciting call, just sign up at www.KickSugarSpecial.com.

C'mon! Of Toilets, Ice & Bacteria

Yuck! You'd think toilets were full of bacteria, right?

Well, 12-year-old Jasmine Roberts, a smart 7th grade student in Tampa, Florida hit upon a startling discovery as part of her winning science fair project.

She compared the ice used in sodas and other drinks with the water from toilet bowls in the same fast food restaurants. She was shocked by the results.

The ice served in soft drinks and other beverages at fast food restaurants had more bacteria than ice from the same restaurant's toilets! Not only that, but 70 percent of the time, the ice had more bacteria than the toilet water.

Jasmine had the water tested at a lab at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, where she volunteers with a USF professor. Ice in three of the five restaurants tested positive for fecal coliform or E. coli, organisms that come from the feces of warm-blooded animals. Disgusting!

As the Tampa newspaper pointed out, symptoms "related to the presence of coliform include cramps and diarrhea. E. coli can cause intestinal illness and, in rare cases, hemolytic uremic syndrome, a serious kidney condition."

"I thought there might be a little bacteria in the ice, but I never expected it to be this much," Jasmine told the Tampa Bay News. "And I never thought the toilet water would be cleaner."

Talk about another compelling reason to stay away from those high fructose corn syrup-laden sodas!

Thanks to Fast Food News for the lead on this news item.

How to Find an Open-Minded, Sugar-Savvy Doctor & Nutritionist

If you're thinking of kicking or cutting back on your consumption of sweets and quickie carbs, it's really smart to see a doctor to guide your progress. But, often, people tell they're having problems finding someone who takes their sugar habit seriously. Here's an article I wrote to help you out. Feel free to route this around to friends, family members, etc., but just make sure to include the credit listed at the bottom of this article.

How to Find an Open-Minded, Sugar-Savvy Doctor & Nutritionist
By Connie Bennett

Annoyed because your M.D. thinks your so-called “sugar addiction” is all “in your head”?

Feeling frustrated because you can't find a physician who understands the incredible power and value of good nutrition?

Feeling hopeless about finding a doctor who "gets it"? Fear no more.

Plenty of open-minded, nutritionally savvy medical practitioners are available to help you—whether you’re hooked on sugar or suspect you have hypoglycemia, diabetes, pre-diabetes, problems, gluten intolerance, and more.

And, if you’re thinking of kicking or even cutting back on your consumption of sweets and quickie carbs, it's really smart to see a doctor to guide your progress.

Because people complain that they’re having problems finding someone who takes their sugar habit seriously, I researched and wrote this to help you out.

First off, you should know that in the United States, Canada and Great Britain, you can choose from among hundreds of thousands of mainstream and alternative practitioners, who are generally knowledgeable, open-minded physicians with additional education in nutrition.

Now, before you pick a doctor, do your homework. Make sure that your physician is well trained, competent, caring, sensitive to your needs, and educated about blood sugar-related issues such as hypoglycemia.

And, as humorist Erma Bombeck used to quip, “Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died.”

Here, then, is a list of organizations, which can offer names of M.D.s or other medical practitioners.

AlternativeMedicine.com
1650 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920 USA
Phone (800) 515-4325
http://www.alternativemedicine.com
AlternativeMedicine.org bills itself as “the leading alternative medicine content provider” in the United States. Founded in 1990. Also operates a radio show, magazine and book division. Offers an online, searchable “Find a Practitioner” database.

American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)
7701 East Kellogg, Suite 625
Wichita, Kansas 67207
Phone (316) 684-5500   
http://www.aaem.com
Formed in 1965, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine is an organization of physicians trained to recognize environmentally triggered illnesses. Doctors examine outside factors that can have adverse effects on health, including diet, inhalants, chemicals, radiation, heat, cold, humidity, and more. Maintains an online database of “Referable Physicians.” Referred doctors are AAEM members, who’ve completed additional training and passed the Academy’s board examination.

ADA Urges Congress to Up Federal Funding for Diabetes Research & Prevention

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) this week called on Congress to increase federal funding for diabetes research and prevention, pass stem cell legislation and protect diabetes health coverage -- changes that could help reverse the increase in diabetes prevalence and reduce the nationwide burden of diabetes and its complications on the healthcare system.

The ADA -- the U.S.'s leading voluntary health organization that supports diabetes research, information and advocacy -- also pointed out something of which I daresay many Americans are unaware.

Despite the growing diabetes epidemic, last year, Congress passed a budget to cut federal funding for diabetes research and prevention for the first time.

Wait, there's more.

The Bush Administration's proposed budget, recently announced, would further cut funding for diabetes research and prevention at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Seriously, why would Congress choose to cut back on funding at a time when diabetes is soaring out of control?

What is more important than the health of our nation's children and adults?

FYI, in its announcement, the ADA rattled off the new figure of which many are unaware (and which I wrote about recently). Recently, the number of Americans with diabetes has surged considerably. Now nearly 21 million Americans have the disease; back in 2003, 18.2 million people had it.

Even more scary:

• The cost of diabetes in the U.S. in 2002 was at least $132 billion.

• One of every 3 Americans born in 2000 and one of every two minorities, will develop diabetes in their lifetime.

Let me repeat and rephrase this: Given those horrifying figures and the growing diabetes epidemic, would someone please explain to me -- as the ADA rightly pointed out -- why last year Congress chose to cut federal funding for diabetes research and prevention for the first time?

Mothers-to-Be Getting More Gestational Diabetes

See this important New York Times article about how more and more women who are developing what's called "gestational diabetes" -- in other words, they become diabetic while they are pregnant.

This disorder appears to be growing fast, journalist N.R. Kleinfeld reports, and in New York, it's risen by nearly 50 percent in about 10 years.

What does this signal?

Well, as Kleinfeld notes, there's a "broader recognition that in the lives of many pregnant women, the arrival of the condition is significant and its impact can be grave..."

Indeed, he explains, "not only does [gesttational diabetes] identify those women at particularly high risk to develop permanent diabetes, but it may contribute to their babies' eventually getting diabetes as well."

Again, as I've remarked repeatedly, it's vital to make significant lifestyle changes, especially before pregnancncy. That, of course, means exercising regularly, getting weight within normal ranges, trimming the culprit carbs, and eating more healthy foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables, ample decent protein and healthy fats.

Amazing Tele-Seminar With Hamptons Diet Doctor

A very special thanks to Dr. Fred Pescatore, author of The Hamptons Diet, for his enlightening comments in last night's tele-seminar.

Indeed, Fred -- who's been a real wealth of information to me over the years, especially with my book SUGAR SHOCK! -- spoke about:

• The lack of nutrition education among doctors
• Dr. Atkins and his role in educating Americans about the dangers of refined carbs
• The role that certain supplments such as chromium and l-glutamine could play in offsetting cravings
• How he himself used to be overweight
• The importance of working on your mindset to overcome your sugar issues
• The value of being aware that sweet foods might still tempt you.

As I've done with previous tele-seminars, I'm letting participants tell you what they thought by quoting from either their e-mails to me or to my free, online KickSugar group.

"Last night's teleseminar was another wonderful event!  The highlight of my week. A couple of things stood out for me. One was the concept of 'eating defensively.' I have a birthday party to go to Saturday night and the host is raving about this fancy chocolate cake she is serving. 

"So here is my plan of defensive eating for the party: I have told her that I am a drug addict with sugar.  I joked and said I would get mean and crazy and insult all her guests if I have any of it.  I have also put my word on the line by telling four other friends who are also going that I need to stay away from the cake and anything else that will sabotage my progress so far. I plan to eat LOTS of protein before I go and also to bring nuts and some veggies so I have something to eat if I am tempted. Please hold me in your hearts, that I can do this. Going to a party and not using it as an excuse to binge is new territory for me.
   
"Another thing that helped me in the teleseminar is dealing with the issue of self-sabotage. One woman asked a great question about whether or not she should drink alcohol on her romantic weekend getaway. I love Dr Pescatore's answer that she needs to find out why she wants to sabotage her own progress.  Alcohol is just another sugar so why the desire to hurt herself?  Wow.  I needed to hear this.  Love myself and value myself enough that I take care of myself instead of self-sabotaging. This is something I definitely feel the need to go deeper into.
   
"Thank you so very, very much for being there for me. And Connie, you are way beyond awesome for putting this program together. Wanda"

Elizabeth then chimed in:

"Amen to that. I am benefiting  too;  thank you so much for the stand you all are making to
stay sugar  free !!   This is my first trip to visit family that I did not drink alcohol/eat sweets. I feel so good; I feel like a different person!!"

Erica told me:

"I really loved the talk tonight and as usual, I learned so much! Thanks again for doing this series, it truly has been an eye-opener and I am not sure you realize how much of huge and positive impact you have made in so many people's lives."

FDA Defines Whole Grains But Ignores Sugar & Grain Allergies

Consumers are confused by whole-grain claims so the Food and Drug Administration is jumping to the rescue by coming up with a new definition.

"It's very important that consumers are able to have a consistent and uniform terminology of what constitutes a whole grain," Barbara Schneeman, director of the FDA's office of nutritional products, labeling and dietary supplements, said in a statement.

According to the new explanations, a whole grain must retain its basic structure.

The FDA document considers "whole grain" to include cereal grains "that consist of the intact, ground, cracked or flaked fruit of the grains whose principal components -- the starchy endosperm, germ and bran -- are present in the same relative proportions as they exist in the intact grain. Such grains may include barley, buckwheat, bulgur, corn, millet, rice, rye, oats, sorghum, wheat and wild rice. In contrast, in the grain refining process some of the bran and germ is removed resulting in a loss of dietary fiber, vitamins and minerals."

"The tricky part is what's done to the grain during processing," CNN.com reported.

"If it's intact, ground, cracked or flaked, it still is a whole grain. Rolled or `quick' oats are still whole grains. Popcorn is a whole grain. Pearled barley is not a whole grain; too much of its bran layer has been removed."

What's more, bagels or pizza which are labeled "whole grain" or "whole wheat" need to have dough made entirely from whole wheat or whole grain flour, the FDA said.

Well, some of this certainly sounds promising. If the grain is intact, it's defnitely a whole grain.

But, frankly, I'm now confused about this new definition. How can ground, flaked or quick oats be considered whole grains?

If they're ground up, aren't the endosperm, germ and bran no longer intact? And doesn't "quick oats" imply that the product is processed. Not so, according to the FDA, which allows that "quick oats" can be called "whole grains" because they contain all of their bran, germ and endosperm.

Here are some tips to gauge if something is whole grain.

• When buying breads, if the first ingredient listed is enriched wheat flour or wheat flour, then that’s not a whole-grain bread—no matter how big the chunks of grain you find.
• If the first ingredient is whole wheat flour, then it's a whole-grain bread.
• Look for higher fiber content, because it slows down the absorption of the carbohydrates so that your blood sugar won’t spike so fast.
• Be on the “alert for subtle nuances that spell the difference between whole grain and refined grain, points out Dr. Walter Willett in his book, Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating. If the label says `made with wheat flour,’ it may be a whole-grain product or it may just be an advertising gimmick—the silkiest, most refined white cake flour is made with wheat flour. True whole-grain products should list as the main ingredient whole wheat, whole oats, whole rye, or some other whole-grain cereal.”
• Steer clear of “fortified” grains. This means that during processing, the vitamins and minerals have been stripped away but then they're added back. As exercise physiologist and fitness expert Bob Greene points out in his book, The Get With the Program Guide to Good Eating, “fortified” doesn’t improve the quality of the grains—“eating one of these products is not the same as eating a whole-grain food: the manufacturers don’t put everything back; the only way to get all the nutrients is to eat the whole grain,” writes Greene, Oprah Winfrey’s personal trainer.
• For more info, see the consumer guide from the Whole Grains Council.

FDA Definition Neglects Sugar in the Whole Grains

Meanwhile, this is great to define whole grain, but there are two huge omissions in all of this new FDA defining.

First off, sugar has been virtually ignored. In other words, many people tend to get deceived, thinking that if they buy something that's whole grain, it's the optimum in nutrition. But that's ignoring the other components in the food.

Low-Carb Diets May Reduce Weight But Raise Cholesterol, Study Says

Low-carb diets may help you to lose weight faster than low-fat diets, but these carb-cutting diets could be linked to higher levels of LDL or "bad" cholesterol, say Swiss scientists at University Hospital Basel..

But, on the other hand, the findings, which are published in the Feb. 13 issue of JAMA Archives of Internal Medicine, also found -- in reviewing five different clinical studies -- that the low-carb dieters had lower triglyceride levels and higher HDL or ‘good' cholesterol levels.

Although the carb shunners -- who consumed large amounts of protein and fat -- lost weight more quickly, after 12 months, both groups had the same blood pressure, completion rates and weight loss levels. The researchers were concerned about the effect of their diets on cholesterol levels and their cardiovascular system.

In other words, the scientists concluded that there's "still insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against the use of low-carbohydrate diets to induce weight loss, especially for durations longer than six months," the authors wrote.

Altough the researchers found low-carb diets to be "at least as effective as low-fat, energy-restricted diets in inducing weight loss for up to 1 year," they suggested that "potential favorable changes in triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol values should be weighed against potential unfavorable changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol values when low-carbohydrate diets to induce weight loss are considered."

Well, that's certainly food for thought.

Look, I'm not a scientist or doctor, but I'm willing to bet that if those low-carb dieters just cut back on all that meat they were eating and continued to gravitate towards high-quality carbs that their cholesterol levels wouldn't be so high.

Sweeter Gift Ideas Submitted

Well, your tallies and ideas are in for The Sweeter Gift Challenge.

Most of you had all kinds of fun, non-sugary things you want to get or give for Valentine's Day.

Not surprisingly, many of you liked flowers. You also liked gifts that came from the heart, especially literary ones. And a number of you mentioned hand-made coupons or gifts. While some women mentioned exotic vacations or diamonds, most women wanted just good old-fashioned romance.

Indeed, the ladies seem to thrive and desire romantic gestures -- even if they're just very simple ones like offering to do the house cleaning for the week or buying her special perfume..

Here are some of my favorite responses from women:

• A love letter or love poem written from your honey's heart.
• A gift of your undivided attention for a full day.
• A slide show of home videos or pictures of just the two of you, with background music and little messages for each scene or photo.
• A massage by candle light.
• A live plant with a heart-shaped balloon tied to it saying, "I love you." with a big heart shaped balloon tied to it--saying I Love You.
• A handmade card with heartfelt thoughts.

• Take half a day off. Meet for lunch at a really fancy restaurant.  Then treat yourself to a special day with your loved one. (This person also wanted flowers for the entire month of February!

• Hire a handyman to tackle hubbie's "Honey Do" list. 

• My favorite perfume because then I will know he is paying attention -- he knows my favorite.

• Something I've really wanted, but haven't purchased, but he is aware enough to know that I want this item.

• Someone to clean the house.

• A weekend at a bed-and-breakfast.

While guys weren't as eager to get in on the Sweeter Gift Challenge, the ones who did were quite specific in what they wanted. In general, they voted for:

• A massage... but not just any massage.
• Special romantic gestures such as a Queen of Hearts card tied up with a lace bow and a request for a special date.

Happy Valentine's Day, everyone. Have a sweet time.

Companies & Ad Industry Seeks to Step Up Self-Regulation to Combat Obesity

A group representing the ad industry and advertisers -- such as companies that make sugary, fatty foods that we see TV spots about in profussion -- announced that it will review its 30-year-old-plus guidelines and how companies should promote their products to kids, FoodNavigator.com reported.

The Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU) of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBB) and the ad industry are, of course, responding to the growing alarm about how irresponsible food ads are contributing to our skyrocking obesity crisis. They're also being cornered by a swarm of criticism from consumer groups and health-conscious physicians, etc.

The ad groups also need to address the fact that a recent U.S. survey (which I wrote about her previously) found that more three quarters of foods being advertised are both nutritionally-deficient and high in calories.

Indeed, high-sugary, nutrient-poor food items such as candies, sweets and soft drinks now dominate TV advertising aimed at children between the ages of six to 11, found Kristen Harrison, a speech communication professor at the University of Illinois.

More specificially, "convenience/fast foods and sweets comprised 83% of advertised foods," according to Harrison's study, "Nutritional Content of Foods Advertised During the Television Programs Children Watch the Most," which appeared in the American Journal of Public Health.

"Snacktime eating was depicted more often than breakfast, lunch, and dinner combined," the research shows. "Advertised foods exceed RDVs of fat, saturated fat, and sodium, yet fail to provide RDVs of fiber and certain vitamins and minerals."

According to its press announcement, CARU will convene the children's ad industry to thoroughly review CARU's Self-Regulatory Guidelines for Children's Advertising, examining:

• Interactive online games
• Paid product placement in children's TV
• Appropriate use of third-party licensed characters (you know, popular characters who push sugary foods)

Forgive my cynicism, but the groups that will reportedly oversee this self policing respris none other than just about every advertising group you can think of:

The National Advertising Review Council (NARC) -- which will have to approve the CARU recommendations -- is an alliance of the Association of National Advertisers (ANA), the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA), the American Advertising Federation (AAF) and the Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB).

Meanwhile, NARC, which was founded in 1971, establishes policies and procedures for the National Advertising Division (NAD), CARU and the National Advertising Review Board (NARB).

And the Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU) founded in 1974, allegedly (according to its website) "promotes responsible children's advertising advertising as part of a strategic alliance with the major advertising trade associations through the National Advertising Review Council (comprising the AAAA, the AAF, the ANA and the CBBB).

But let's follow the money here. "NAD and CARU," the CARU press release tells us, "are the investigative arms of the advertising industry's voluntary self-regulation program."

What's more, this "unique, self-regulatory system is funded entirely by the business community." In fact, "CARU is financed by the children's advertising industry, while NAD/NARC/NARB's sole source of funding is derived from membership fees paid to the CBBB."

What I'd like to know is this:

• Why would CARU wait more than 30 years to review its Guidelines?
• How can they expect to be anywhere near unbiased if the people funding the guidelines and self regulating them are the ones who create the ads?
• If these companies and ad industry really means mean business about changing their guidelines, then why not consult with obesity experts, college professors in advertising and renowned consumer groups such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest and Commercial Alert?

Make Valentine's Day Sweeter By Giving Gifts From the Heart

Check out SheKnows.com to see my article, "The Scoop on How Sweets Could Sour Your Sweetie: Make Valentine's Day by Giving Gifts From the Heart."

If you'd like to listen to our free download of The Sweeter Challenge Tele-Seminar, just go to http://www.SweeterGift.com/replay. We'd love to hear what you think.

Get Gift Ideas for Valentine's Day -- Free Replay of Tele-Seminar

Stumped on what to get for your sweetie?

Hear precious pearls of wisdom offered from four experts and one surprise guest during our fun, free, first annual Sweeter Gift Challenge Tele-Seminar.

Click here to get a free replay of the call featuring:

• Nancie Clare, WomensWallStreet.com managing editor, who will talk about the company's second annual Valentine's Day survey, which revealed what women really want. (Hint: it's not chocolate!)
• Naura Hayden, author of the #1 New York Times bestsellers How to Satisfy a Woman Every Time… and have her beg for more! and How To Satisfy a Man Every Time… and have him beg for more!, who offers ideas on how to share that special day with your beloved.
• Robyn Spizman, one of America’s foremost gift experts and author of The Giftionary™, who dishes ideas on how to dazzle your loved one on Valentine's Day.
• Alicia Stanton, M.D., anti-aging physician specializing in hormone balance and nutrition. She talks about how eating too many sweets could mess with your blood sugar levels and make you moody instead of “in the mood.”

Listen to the free replay call now for great non-sugary Valentine's Day gifts.

UK Confectioners Add Labels to Stave Off Anti-Obesity Legislation

Their moves don't exactly seem altruistic, but over in Great Britain, Cadbury and Masterfoods UK will add some health information to the food labels on their confectionery products, according to FoodNavigator.com/Europe.

More specifically, as reporter Peter Stiff describes it, their efforts to add healthy labeling are simply "a bid to stave off anti-obesity legislation on labelling."

Stiff continues:

"The new labelling forms part of the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Association's (BCCCA) ‘Be Treatwise' campaign.

"The National Consumer Council (NCC) in the UK has dismissed the industry's decision to introduce the guidance as `a cynical move' that is ...confusing to consumers [and which] seeks] to pre-empt the Food Standards Agency's well researched front of pack signposting, which is under public consultation.”

The `Be Treatwise' campaign launched a little over a week ago, is intended to educate consumers to eat sweets responsibly as part of a balanced diet.

But I'm wondering -- why encourage people to even eat sweets at all (responsibly or not) when you have a rapidly growing population -- and I don't mean sprouting up.

Let's face it -- these are just huge companies that need to show increased and steady sales. So they simply seek to make it OK to eat sweets -- they justify eating sweets by making it  reasonable if you do so "responsibily"? Do they define what "responsibly" means? Are most people even able to act "responsibly" whether or not they know what it means?

The labeling move comes while the UK's Department of Health most recent stats indicate that 59 percent of women in England and 66 percent of men were overweight or obese in 2003.

Of course, as those of us who watch the industry know, whenever you have a proliferation of processed crap, you inevitably have an obesity problem.