The skinny on diet junk-food

14th March 2008

The skinny on diet junk-food

posted in Diets, Health, Nutrition & Fitness, Vegetarianism |

My sister-in-law, the Weight Watcherer, is probably the pickiest eater I know. She doesn’t like vegetables, she doesn’t eat much fruit. What she seems to live on are those ridiculously expensive 100-calorie preportioned diet junk-food snacks. But yet because she’s managed to lose her baby weight and is now back to what is probably her body’s natural set point range, I’m sure she thinks she’s eating healthy. 100-calorie snacks - diet junk food

At the grocery store last week, the woman in front of me piled the belt high with Lean Cuisine frozen dinners, Weight Watchers muffins, 100-calorie bags of chips, a case of Slim-Fast and those new “diet” vitamin-infused flavored waters. Her loot stood in stark contrast to my fresh fruits and vegetables, brown rice, cans of organic beans and vegetables, Quorn faux chicken breasts, orange juice and bottles of plain ole’ zero-calorie water. Yet in a comparison between the two of us, with no other factors considered, most people would probably judge her to be healthier simply because she is thinner.

As the growing numbers of preportioned snacks reflect, they’re not the only dieters infatuated with what one nutritionist calls “trailer food.” Every snack variety known to modern Western society now comes conveniently packed in “guilt-free” servings. Even Hershey’s makes 100-calorie packs of M&Ms. MSNBC republished an Allure story today on such junk-food dieters:

According to their credo, low-calorie is good; no-calorie is better — even if the food contains more chemicals than a can of hair spray… Many believe ingesting a few artificial ingredients is a small price to pay for being able to eat the things they love while staying as thin as a Pringle… Women who would never carry a fake Birkin seem to not think twice about toting around fake butter.

The story gives short shrift to the actual unhealthiness of such foods, and instead focuses almost exclusively on the inevitable and banal “junk in your trunk” factor. One dieter now drinks an iced nonfat latte in lieu of a healthy breakfast to curb cravings, and is supported by the director of nutrition at Columbia University Medical Center, who additionally cautions readers that if you have one such drink with a healthy breakfast, you can gain up to 10 whole pounds in a year. Oh, the absolute horrors. The director does note that typically, those who eat breakfast are often the most “successful” losers, but for the diet-minded reader, which option sounds more tempting? A healthy breakfast with maximum nutritional benefits that contains real calories, or a diet iced nonfat latte with minimal nutritional benefits, that may or may not encourage weight loss?

I like to say I am about 90 percent vegan, because while I have eliminated most dairy products from my diet, those no-calorie spray butters remain a holdover from my eating disorder days. And since I eat lots of veggies, I tend to use spray butter nearly every day and liberally at that. But according to Laura Slayton, director of a New York nutrition counseling center, this is why I’m fat:

Also easily abusable: I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter! Spray. Most nutritionists aren’t opposed to misting vegetables with it, especially if it gets people to eat greens they’d otherwise avoid. But don’t be fooled by the zero-calorie label. “There are no calories if you spray five times. If you spray 20, it has cumulative calories. Don’t spray and spray and step on the scale and expect miracles,” says Slayton, who knows of one celebrity who gained weight after going through a bottle every three days.

The Food and Drug Administration says any food serving that contains less than half a gram of fat, protein or carbohydrate can claim 0 grams – and thus, 0 calories – for those nutrients. Plus, any nutrient with less than 5 calories can be listed as having no calories on the nutrition label. According to one commenter at 3 Fat Chicks (caution: it’s a diet site), 25 mists of spray butter adds up to just 20 calories; one tablespoon, or 72 sprays, contains just 52 calories. I can burn off the calories of 25 sprays with one good stretch, but still, it’s probably a good thing I don’t step on the scale expecting “miracles.”

The article goes on to address artificial sweeteners, regularly consumed by as many as 180 million Americans, according to WebMD, who offers a detailed article on them. A recent study done by Susan Swithers and Terry Davidson at Purdue University found that rats given yogurt sweetened with saccharin ate more, gained more weight, and developed more body fat than rats who ate yogurt with sugar. In explaining why, researchers suggest that artificial sweeteners may interfere with the body’s natural ability to count calories based on a food’s sweetness which may make people prone to overindulging in other sweet foods and beverages.

I hypothesize that the reason people may overindulge in other sweets and beverages is not physiological, but psychological: If your body wants chocolate and you try to pacify it with rice cakes, even those 90-calorie preportioned bags of chocolate rice cakes, chances are, your body will still want the real deal. Most people who diet, and nearly everyone with some form of binging-related disorder will tell you that the food they deny themselves usually becomes the one item they most obsess about and even binge on. When is the last time you heard of anyone binging on broccoli? It’s called intuitive eating – listening to your body’s cues signaling satiety and hunger, feeding it what it really wants and being good to it.

With its negligible attention to the actual nutritional shortcomings of much of these diet junk-food products, many diet-minded readers will most likely walk away from this story with a favorable opinion of these often highly-processed, high-sodium, low-anything-else foods. And like all food, diet junk-food is neither “good” nor “bad.” I’ve personally bought the 100-calorie packs of Blue Diamond almonds and also the 100-calorie packs of EatSmart Veggie Crisps.

But while diet junk-food may have its place in a healthy diet, I’m concerned about the growing numbers of people who have come to conflate “diet” food with “healthy” food, and by proxy, thinness with good health and fat with bad health. In our overzealousness to reduce calories and lose weight, there are people who actually believe a 100-calorie pack of Hostess cupcakes is healthier than a 150-calorie potato. Diet junk-food may be low in calories, but shouldn’t the nutritional quality of our diet supercede caloric quantity when it comes to good health? A diet consisting primarily of diet junk-food may make you thinner, but it probably won’t make you healthier.

Click to Bookmark

This entry was posted on Friday, March 14th, 2008 at 2:00 pm and is filed under Diets, Health, Nutrition & Fitness, Vegetarianism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 On March 14th, 2008, Laura said:

“researchers suggest that artificial sweeteners may interfere with the body’s natural ability to count calories based on a food’s sweetness which may make people prone to overindulging in other sweet foods and beverages.”

That makes so much sense.

As does the “forbidden fruit” theory.

I LOVE those Blue Diamond almonds. Have you tried the smoked jalapeno kind? So delicious.

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

2 On March 14th, 2008, Brigid Keely said:

Well, of COURSE potatoes aren’t healthy. They’re WHITE. And more than 100 calories. Why on earth would anyone eat a POTATO? Why not just fall over dead right now?

Sorry. That “white diet” thing was the first thing that popped into my head when you mentioned potato versus cupcake.

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

3 On March 14th, 2008, devil said:

Diet junk-food (or any sort of junk food, really) is so lacking in nutrients that I don’t see how people who eat it regularly can get through the day. When I eat even small amounts of junk food, my workout suffers the next morning. That’s reason enough to eat properly for me. I need my body to complete certain tasks so I need to provide it with good fuel.

Besides, isn’t all that processed, heavily packaged food really expensive? It just seems so wasteful to have all that packaging for such a small amount of chemical food.

I’ve already ranted about Weight Watchers here, so I’ll hush up now.

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 4:02 pm

4 On March 14th, 2008, Meowser said:

regularly consumed by as many as 180 Americans

You mean 180 million Americans, right? I wish it was only 180!

“More chemicals than a can of hair spray,” indeed. I’m still trying to fathom just how low-calorie your diet has to be, and how hungry you have to be, in order to go through a can of butter spray every three days and having that make you gain weight.

Once in a while — maybe once or twice a month — if I’m at a place with pour-it-yourself fountain drinks I will mix diet and regular Coke, because mixing the two sweeteners helps cut down on the cloying aspects of each for me. But other than that, screw them and their edible hairspray. No more of that for me.

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 4:11 pm

5 On March 14th, 2008, Rachel said:

Whoops, thanks for pointing that out, Meowser. And I’m still trying to make sense of that whole spray butter weight gain, too. At 52 calories a tablespoon, each bottle has, by my count, 832 calories. At that rate, it’d take four bottles to simply gain one pound.

I switched to diet pop (as we here in the midwest call it) in 2003 and have only had regular pop once since then. I knew immediately after just one sip that it was regular because it was almost sickingly sweet. That’s how desensitized my taste buds have become from the artificial sweeteners. I still use Splenda in lieu of sugar in an occasional cup of hot tea or sugar-free apple cider which is already sweetened with sucralose. I prefer my iced tea plain. Sugar itself may be healthier, but my disordered brain is still wary of it.

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

6 On March 14th, 2008, Fillyjonk said:

At 52 calories a tablespoon, each bottle has, by my count, 832 calories. At that rate, it’d take four bottles to simply gain one pound.

It sure would, if metabolism worked that way!

Have you read Michael Pollan’s book? I haven’t, but I liked his article about real food vs. food that’s basically spun out of chemicals and packaged as “healthy.” (See also Good Omens.)

Anyway, I’m mainly commenting to say “wtf is a ‘fake Birkin’?”

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 4:36 pm

7 On March 14th, 2008, Becky said:

There are no calories if you spray five times. If you spray 20, it has cumulative calories.

So if 5 sprays has less than 5 calories, 20 sprays could have as many as… dear God! 20 whole calories!

According to their credo, low-calorie is good; no-calorie is better — even if the food contains more chemicals than a can of hair spray

I’m not so bothered by the chemicals. But people think low calorie food is better even if it has little to no nutritional value. Like the woman drinking a latte instead of eating cheese and berries. You get the impression that many people really wouldn’t eat at all if they had the “discipline” required. We seem to have completely forgotten that food is fuel our body needs to survive, and started thinking of it as this substance that makes us fat, but that we’re too weak to resist.

And teaching people to hide thier food from themselves! It disturbs the hell out of me how many eating disordered tips find their way into mainstream diet articles.

While I do enjoy the occasional Diet Coke, I definately agree that if your body is craving real food, fake food just isn’t going to do it. I was having a craving for ice cream bars, so I went to the grocery store to pick some up and found all these boxes containing: “Chocolatey-coated frozen dessert product.” What the hell is the point in eating something like that?

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 4:41 pm

8 On March 14th, 2008, Cindy said:

I have to take off on a tangent rant, here.

“Trailer food?” Gawd, how nauseatingly paternalistic and patronizing that term is! Poor people often subsist on packaged food approved for them by government assistance programs (not to mention foods easily prepared by single parents, siblings or grandparents) and nutritional imperialist direct haughty, morally superior sniffs in their direction. Makes me crazy.

My spouse grew up in a trailer. Her mom cooked breakfast and dinner just about every day. Not that it would meet with the approval of food purists of today; Her mother kept a family of six fed with rice, beans, migas, tortillas and meats doused in mole, cheese sauces and the like. Oh, and LOTS of fresh, sliced fruit. Today, there would be tsk-tsking about the carbs! The fat! The sugar! (Latinos are prone to diabetes, and the rice, beans, and fruit are ticking time bombs, don’t you know.)

Trailer food. Way to take another moral swipe at the underclass, Mr. Nutrion Sepcialist. (NOT Rachel. Me loves Rachel.)

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

9 On March 14th, 2008, Sarah said:

A Birkin is a reaaaallly expensive, hard-to-get Hermes bag.

This was a great post, Rachel.

10 On March 14th, 2008, Becky said:

wtf is a ‘fake Birkin’?”

A Birkin bag is a very expensive handbag. A fake Birkin is a counterfeit version of a Birkin bag. (As in, similar looking but mass-produced in China with a counterfeit label slapped on it).

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 4:43 pm

11 On March 14th, 2008, Emily said:

Thank you for this post — diet foods drive me up the wall, as do people who think that healthy=nonfattening. When I was recovering from anorexia, I gained 25 pounds eating only healthy, real foods, and people kept saying “you can’t gain weight from that” thinking that brown rice and vegetables and olive oil must be calorically exempt because they are healthy. I love telling people that fat is healthy! Sometimes my husband will be trying to decide between two food options, and will ask which is healthier. Often the healthier one is also the more caloric one, so I ask whether he really means healthy or whether he means less fattening.

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 4:50 pm

12 On March 14th, 2008, Rachel said:

Have you read Michael Pollan’s book?

Heavily skimmed it and the hubby and I went to hear him give a lecture and book signing at a local bookstore in January. I didn’t care too much for his obesity fear mongering, but other than that, I have to say I’m with him on a lot of things. Since the lecture, the husband and I have made a concerted effort to check for trans fats and HFCS and to remove those things completely from our diet.

And teaching people to hide thier food from themselves! It disturbs the hell out of me how many eating disordered tips find their way into mainstream diet articles.

Exactly. My thought is that if you have to hide food from yourself, you ought probably see a therapist to address the reasons why you need to hide food from yourself. Recommending that people hide food to avoid binges is like dropping sandbags on the levees in New Orleans and hoping for the best come the next Hurricane Katrina. You can’t apply a bandaid to a sucking chest wound and expect it to be effective.

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

13 On March 14th, 2008, Karen said:

Pfft. The only reason I hide food is because I want to have some myself. Kinda hard to get a cookie around here if the kids know they’re there.

I’m all for purse-sized packs of food to placate hungry tummies in lieu of buying overpriced fast food, but, seriously? A Snickers has everything a hypoglycemic chickie needs to get to a real meal. Sugar for the instant relief of the shakes, and protein and fat to keep you going for a little while. Hard to say that about anything else that size.

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 5:23 pm

14 On March 14th, 2008, Bekbek said:

Wow, it sounds like the spray butter may threaten carpal tunnel well before weight gain. Also, during a past “I must punish myself for fatness” phase I tried out nutrisystem for a couple of months. I still have packages of tiny scary chemical food sitting around my kitchen. Thinking of ’soft-canned’ pasta that stays good for years….shudder. At least I have a stash to stave off zombies if there’s ever a Dawn of the Dead scenario.

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 5:35 pm

15 On March 14th, 2008, emi said:

Hi Rachel – I agree with everything you wrote, opinion-wise, but you misquoted the article. You wrote:

“One dieter now drinks an iced nonfat latte in lieu of a healthy breakfast to curb cravings, and is supported by the director of nutrition at Columbia University Medical Center, who additionally cautions readers that if you have one such drink with a healthy breakfast, you can gain up to 10 whole pounds in a year. Oh, the absolute horrors.”

But it says:

“But nutritionists concur that they shouldn’t be used to replace a meal. “These drinks can be as low as 100 calories, and if someone’s previous breakfast was 200 calories, that could result in a weight loss of ten pounds a year. . . ” says Wahida Karmally, director of nutrition at Columbia University Medical Center.”

The director DOESN’T support the latte because it’s too low-calorie; the opposite of what you said.

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

16 On March 14th, 2008, Rachel said:

Emi – I think you misunderstood what I wrote. The nutritionist is basically stating that if you have a 100-calorie drink in lieu of a 200-calorie breakfast, the 100 calorie difference adds up to 10 pounds in a year. So, if you add a 100-calorie drink to your existing 200-calorie breakfast, it also stands to reason that you would gain 10 pounds in a year with this logic. Even if the nutritionist didn’t mean for her comment to be taken as pro-latte over breakfast, which statement do you think will appeal most to dieters? The one cautioning them not to replace their 200-calorie breakfasts with a 100-calorie drink? Or the statement that a 100-calorie drink instead of a 200-calorie breakfast will help them to lose 10 pounds in a year?

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

17 On March 14th, 2008, Lillian said:

Before my family became vegan, I had butter in the refrigerator. Every time I see skim milk pushed as a health food, I get ill. Most people are lactose intolerant and many people are allergic to milk protein. The only part that is healthy is the butter.

My rant is over.

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 7:28 pm

18 On March 14th, 2008, emi said:

Hi Rachel – I agree with your point, that dieters will read her advice and take away the message that an 100-calorie latte is better than a 200 calorie breakfast (Which by the way? That’s really small. My breakfast is like, 500 calories.)

However, the nutritionist said, “they shouldn’t be used to replace a meal.” That is NOT a statement of support for the idea of latte-for-breakfast. You wrote, that latte-for-breakfast “is supported by the director of nutrition.” It’s not fair to misrepresent what she’s saying like that.

I agree that it was dumb of the nutritionist to say, that the latte idea could lead to weight loss, and that it sends a mixed message when so many people seek weightloss at any cost. But she does NOT recommend the idea, nor does she state that adding a latte to your breakfast could add to weight gain. No matter how likely it is that she’s not giving usefully advice, no matter how dumb the latte-for-breakfast idea is, no matter how much the article and nutritionists condone the idea of low-calorie junk food, it’s not appropriate or fair to misquote people.

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 7:47 pm

19 On March 14th, 2008, Krista said:

I buy the 100 calorie packs constantly, not because I am diet-minded, but because I try to eat a healthy balanced diet and sometimes crave the junk of my youth. I try to avoid over-processed foods, and find that those packs satisfy the craving without me eating an entire box.
Also, I have medical issues where I often find myself needing to Eat. Right. Now. Those work until I can get some proteins in me to stay the course.

I agree with the whole “diet” junk food issue. You should hear my rants about low-carb chips, breads, etc. Same concept.

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 8:14 pm

20 On March 14th, 2008, Meowser said:

It sure would, if metabolism worked that way!

Well, yes. But you have Bill Clinton running around telling schoolchildren that if they can just cut out 45 calories a day they’ll weigh 20 pounds less when they graduate from high school. Forty-five calories is about what’s in the fish oil supplement I take. Therefore, by calorie voodoo math I should weigh more now than I did before starting to take the supplements three years ago. I don’t. I actually weigh slightly less, but don’t tell the calorie voodoo mathematicians that medication affects your metabolism at all. There aren’t enough mops to clean up the inevitable cranial explosions.

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 9:02 pm

21 On March 14th, 2008, Rachel said:

I don’t think I misquoted her, emi, although I understand if you disagree. Her own quoted statements – statements taken directly from her – directly contradict those paraphrased by the reporter. The only reason she seems to even acknowledge the benefits of breakfast is because she claims most “successful” losers eat it. It all boils down to weight loss, not overall health.

posted on March 14th, 2008 at 10:24 pm

22 On March 15th, 2008, Quiwi said:

Very interesting, thank you for this post, Rachel. I’m slowly learning how to cut the prepackaged, processed junk out of my grocery shopping list, and I’m amazed at how much easier it is on my health and my wallet (especially with the steady increase in food costs!) I now understand that it’s better to just use as many simple, natural ingredients in food preparation (including plain ol’ sugar, sometimes!)as you can. That way, meals are not only tastier and more filling, but also give you the fuel necessary to get your life on!
What people need to understand is that the “diet” industry wouldn’t even exist if we stopped depriving ourselves of simple, good nutrition in order to have bodies that can fit skinny jeans! Feed your body right, it will return the favor with strength and energy, that’s what really matters. Truth is, if I can’t read the ingredient list of something out loud without stumbling and getting tongue-tied halfway through, then chances are, I’m better off eating the box. Fiber on the real.
Oh,and I hope I’m not being all nitpicky, but I think that M&M’s are a Mars brand, not Hershey’s. Nothing major.

posted on March 15th, 2008 at 12:47 am

23 On March 15th, 2008, Tangerina said:

Both my parents are on Weight Watchers and I’m home for the weekend. I wanted a snacky thing tonight and found a little caramel bar. Thinking it would be yummy caramel and was WW because it was a tiny serving I bit in and found out that is was basically sweet protein powder in a caramel-inspired form. Since I’ve gotten pretty good at intuitive eating I didn’t try to finish it and went to look for something I actually wanted to eat.

When I went on my first diet at 14 I didn’t know much about nutrition and I pretty much lived off of smoothies made of diet Snapple with half a banana and some berries, Smart Pop, and these peanut butter protein bars that tasted EXACTLY like the caramel thing I just tried to eat. Oh yeah, and once I ate a whole onion because it was filling and had no calories, but then I felt horrible.

posted on March 15th, 2008 at 4:17 am

24 On March 15th, 2008, Devi said:

According to NPR, Americans spent $200 million dollaras on 100 calorie snack packs this year. The other day I found myself spending 99 cents on one of those 80 calorie Kit Kat slivers. Marketing genious.

Fillyjonk, Famine would definately approve.

posted on March 15th, 2008 at 7:36 am

25 On March 15th, 2008, Cara said:

“shouldn’t the nutritional quality of our diet supercede caloric quantity when it comes to good health”

That, in a nutshell, was what first alerted me to the fact that South Beach was iffy, back when I was still dieting. Admittedly it’s only the first week or two but banning fruit and encouraging sugar-free gelatine snacks – loaded with weird chemicals – daily? It just doesn’t seem right. Maybe it’s just me…

posted on March 15th, 2008 at 9:11 am

26 On March 15th, 2008, Bree said:

I buy the 100 calorie packs of Goldfish crackers because they make good mid-morning snacks while I’m at work. When I’m out to eat and I have a glass of water with lemon, I’ll mix it with Splenda to make lemonade.

But you know what? If I want a latte or some other fancy coffee drink, I’ll get the 400 calorie one with whipped cream. If I’m in the mood for fast food, I’ll stop and get some. Eating should not be a stressful experience. Unfortunately, the medical industry and the diet vampires are bombarding us with horrible, overhyped scare tactics. According to them, anything we put in our mouths is bad and will cause instant death. The healthiest thing we can do for ourselves is to listen to our bodies, not their mouths.

posted on March 15th, 2008 at 11:54 am

27 On March 19th, 2008, jill said:

Sorry for the most boring comment ever, but I don’t think Hershey makes M&Ms — I think they are made by M&M Mars or something like that. I checked their site, but it was all “spokescandies” and that kind of marketing makes me want to gouge out my own eyes, so I didn’t look very far.

posted on March 19th, 2008 at 10:08 am

28 On March 19th, 2008, connie sue lankheet said:

ALL JUNK FOOD IS BAD AND SO IS PROCESSED FOOD. NATATURE MADE US TO EAT NATURALLY AND THATS THE WAY WE SHOULD EAT. IT HAD THAT IN MIND WHEN NATURE MADE US TO BEGIN WITH.IT DID NOT HAVE IN MIND ALL THE JUNK WE EAT TODAY PEOPLE ARE TOO LAZY TO REALLY COOK GOOD FOOD. THEY RATHER JUST GO TO THE STORE AND GET THE JUNK AND BOXED CRAP. OR GO TO MICKEY DEES OR THE KING OF BURGERS. THEY ARE JUST HURTING THEM SELVES BY EATING THAT JUNK. YOU WILL PAY FOR LATER IN LIFE.

posted on March 19th, 2008 at 11:05 am

29 On March 19th, 2008, Rachel said:

Connie – your views are appreciated, but there is no need to SHOUT.

And yeah, Mars does make M&Ms, not Hershey’s. As a food historian, I really ought know this!

posted on March 19th, 2008 at 11:48 am

30 On September 4th, 2008, annakat said:

Low carbohydrates diet is the best for both diabetics and also over eaters. My husband and I are both diabetics and as long as we stick to Low carbohydrates diet our sugar levels stay low and so does our weight. Of course we do not eat any sugar. We do eat ice cream, it only has 4 carbohydrates. Bread has only 9 grams of carbohydrates. It is easier than counting fats, sugar, or anything else.

posted on September 4th, 2008 at 8:23 pm

31 On November 22nd, 2008, Dino Delellis said:

Indeed , unfortunately the fact that these products are backed by huge multi-million companies, that means massive advertising campaigns designed to influence people to buy these diet junkfood.

This is the result of that massive manipulation of perception. Millions of people believe that these diet foods will help them a thinner and ( unfortunately false ) healthier lifestyle.

And your right the chemicals in these food products are potentially dangerous to our systems

posted on November 22nd, 2008 at 4:13 am