They aren’t necessarily low-calorie or healthful
By Wendy J. Meyeroff
THE ERICKSON TRIBUNE
The dollars spent on weight-loss products in the U.S. has risen from $5 billion to $50 billion, a 1,000% increase. Yet when you see the words “fat-free,” “low-fat,” or “low-calorie,” that doesn’t always mean that product will help you lose weight, or that it is good for you.
Misleading names cause confusion
Consider “fat-free.” “If your goal is simply to reduce the amount of fat in your diet, the product can be a good choice. But remember that just because the product has little or no fat doesn’t make it otherwise healthful. It can be high in sugars, for example,” says Bernadette Navarro, R.D., dietitian at Henry Ford Village, a community in Michigan built and managed by Erickson.
The phrase “sugar-free” doesn’t necessarily make it better. “I don’t like anything artificial when it comes to food so I don’t recommend artificial sweeteners. They encourage the taste for sweet without satisfying it,” says Marion Nestle, Ph.D., M.P.H., professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University. “We should recondition ourselves as to what we think of as sweet. A freshly picked apple can hit us as a sweet treat,” adds Walter Willett, M.D., of Harvard’s departments of nutrition and epidemiology.
“One of the big problems with low-calorie entrées is they are very heavy on sodium to help preserve their taste. That can be dangerous if you have high blood pressure, as many older people do. An entrée with 900 or 1,200 mg of sodium is going to use up a lot of your daily allowance, which for many older adults is between 2,000 and 4,000 mg,” says Navarro.
“A low-fat dressing for your salad isn’t necessarily a good choice. The natural oils in most regular salad dressings actually promote lower cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke,” Willett says.