Probiotic vs Prebiotic

So yesterday, Regina from the top-notch blog Weight of the Evidence pointed out that I had referred to inulin as a probiotic when, actually, it is a prebiotic. And, as another reader asked: What's the difference?

Good question, actually, because we're seeing these terms thrown around a lot these days as more "functional foods" come online. And when you see TV commercials talking about Dannon yogurt with "L casei Immunitas," I guess it's time to find out just what the terms mean. (More on "L casei Immunitas" later.)

For a definitive answer, I went to the godfather of all references, the Oxford English Dictionary--one bonus of working for a university is online access to this beautiful monstrosity.

And here we have it. A "prebiotic" is a non-digestible food ingredient that selectively promotes the growth of beneficial bacteria in the intestine. The beneficial bacteria themselves are "probiotics." So inulin, which I wrote about yesterday, is a prebiotic because it promotes the healthy bacteria. The term "probiotic" first appeared in 1995 in a Journal of Nutrition article--which is the kind of trivia one obtains from reading the OED. We also find that the two main prebiotics are the non-digestible oligosaccharides inulin and oligofructose, the richest nutritional sources of which are chicory root, Jerusalem artichokes, leeks and onions.

Oligofructose is used in what I personally think is the best low-carb chocolate, made by Maine Cottage Foods, which is sweetened with a blend of erythritol, Splenda and Ace-K.

But I digress, which I tend to do when there's chocolate around :-)

What Dannon touts in its Activia and DanActive yogurts--even the "plain" also contains sugar, by the way, so don't go rushing out to buy any--are "L casei Immunitas" and "Bifidus Regularis," which are really the company's own blends of probiotics (bacteria, or live cultures) that they claim promote a healthy immune system (immunitas) and bowel health (regularis). They don't tell us what the blend is--it's their "trade secret"--and tout that they're the only yogurts to have it. (Well, of course they are--Dannon made the blends up, including their "official" fake Latin names. Duh.)

But I don't eat that sugar-laden junk anyway. What I DO eat is plain Lifeway Kefir, which with a splash of DaVinci syrup makes a great yogurt smoothie. It contains 10 active probiotics: 

• Lactobacillius Lactis
• Lactobacillus Rhamnosus
• Streptococcus Diacetylactis
• Lactobacillus Plantarum
• Lactobacillius Casei
• Saccharomyces Florentinus
• Leuconostoc Cremoris
• Bifidobacterium Longum
• Bifidobacterium Breve
• Lactobacillus Acidophilus

What do all those probiotic bugs do for me? Couldn't tell you. But it tastes really good with some DaVinci Sugar-Free Irish Cream or Kahlua. And, yes, we could talk about spiking healthy yogurt with chemical-laden artificial sweetener. But that's a biology lesson for another day. Class is dismissed!

Out of the Inbox

Just cleaning out the files...

• Have you read about the new "Jelly Belly" diet pill? It's a new Italian creation, but unfortunately doesn't offer the flavor offerings of real Jelly Bellies. Instead, the idea is that you swallow this pill and it inflates to a gelatinous mass the size of a tennis ball in your stomach. Makes you feel full and you don't want to eat as much. It eventually dissolves and goes out in the usual manner as if you had simply eaten 42 cups of Jell-O. I think if the scientists hadn't used the words "gelatinous mass" I could get into it a little more. Still, cheaper than gastric bypass.

• Just in case you didn't think most foods' health claims were a bogus bunch of advertising fluff, here comes Frito Lay, who decided that since they have switched to using more non-saturated fat in their chips, they can now make health claims for Ruffles. It seems to be under serious consideration by the FDA, which I think once this passes can officially change its name to the Food Disaster Administration.

• A recent survey by the NDP market research group found that 70 percent of adult Americans want to cut down or avoid sugar completely, with 40 percent saying they check food labels for sugar content. As a result, food manufacturers are responding to the resultant demand for more reduced-sugar or sugar-free products. Great! Well, except that the survey analysts stated that Americans had gotten on an anti-sugar kick in the 1960s, too, and we apparently got over it.

• The buzz over probiotics continues. This latest, from a food industry newsletter, says the science is "building" behind the use of the probiotic ingredient inulin. Inulin is a root fiber that promotes probiotic bacteria in the gut, has a sweet taste, and is classified as a soluble fiber. The latest study, published in Nutrition Research, shows that probiotics such as inulin, consumed regularly, help protect against colon cancer.

Microwave of Evil

How often do you use the microwave oven? I'm thinking, for myself, at least once a day--sometimes more. I tend to reheat more than actually cook in it. I know some low-carbers cook eggs in it but I've never liked them microwaved.

But I also don't blame my microwave for any weight problems that might be found in my household.

Under the heading of "stupid health stories," file this under "REALLY stupid." A UK professor claims thatmicrowave ovens triggered the rise in obesity.

Say huh?

Because the increase in microwave usage parallels the increase in obesity from the 1980s, this undoubtedly means that the microwave did it. Sounds kinda like the "Devil Made Me Do It" defense, and where's Flip Wilson when you need him? Oh yeah, he's dead.

Probably microwaved himself into a size 10X.

And if you need further proof of the evils of microwave cooking, look on the front of your microwave. Chances are you'll find convenient settings for popcorn and potatoes.

So toss out your microwaves, one and all! Heat up your big ovens. Pop in a cake. Obviously, if it ain't cooked in the microwave, the calories don't count.

Porky for President?

I guess it was inevitable, as more and more folks talk about Al Gore as a desired presidential candidate, that talk would turn to his weight. Now, obviously, Al has put on a few. But does his weight make him a worse candidate for president than others? Aren't there better things to make fun of him for?

Guess not, according to the pundits on this recent clip from Chris Matthews' "Hardball" show.

They could at least have joked about him increasing sales of low-carb products and not SlimFast!

Livin' Large

So, I'm always fascinated by what marketers and retailers think Big People need and want in their lives. It can make quite the sociological study.

Obviously, for example, women's clothing manufacturers and retailers have several preconceived notion about overweight women:

• Our arms hang down beyond our knees so we need extremely long sleeves;
• We are very fond of very large prints;
• We enjoy clingy midriff tops (preferably in very large prints);
• Novelty items with pigs, elephants, or cows on them are big favorites, so that we can invite rude comments from strangers; and
• Two words: fluffy chiffon.

Note to manufacturers: these assumptions are not true.

So it was with extreme interest that I came across the LivingXL website, with products designed for plus-sized men and women.

And what do the folks at LivingXL think we need? Let's see: robes up to 8x; super-sized towels; hand-held showers; and the "Big John" toilet seat that holds up to 1,200 pounds. Egads. High-capacity scales. Hmm..a Leg Lifter. Wonder what that does? A "bottom buddy." That's in the personal hygiene category and I don't want to delve too deeply into its use. Large patient gowns--and if you've ever gone to the doctor and had to don a gown that doesn't quite meet you'd see the beauty of having your own. Large-sized life jackets. Don't laugh--I have one of these, for those Hurricane Katrina-like events. I also own an inflatable boat for the same reason, but that's a topic for my other blog. Benches. Picnic tables. Are picnic benches a problem for overweight people? Ah, an airplane seatbelt extender, which you can choose by airline. Travel iron. Uh...fat people need special travel irons? How have I lived this long without realizing that? Oversized clothes hangers. Now that's a great idea.

Oh well.

I'm making light of all this, and admittedly some of the items are pretty strange. But others sound dead-useful, so why not.

On the other hand, let's see what we can do about those orangutan arms that manufacturers insist on putting on plus-size clothing.

Kimkins Revisited

Like many of you who are fans and/or followers of low carb, I'm an avid reader of Jimmy Moore's Livin' La Vida Low Carb blog. He is, after all, the poster child for the active, successful low-carber and has been so supportive of so many of us who read his blog.

While Jimmy runs a lot of ads for the Kimkins program and reports on its many success stories, I was really surprised to read this recent post that Jimmy, who has had an amazing success with losing weight on Atkins, was going the Kimkins route himself due to a little bit of what I call "creepage and leakage" on his weight.

I have really mixed feelings about the Kimkins program.

Does it work? Oh, heck yes. I lost about 40 of my 65-pound loss last year on Kimkins and have tentatively been planning to do another Kimkins round later this summer when I have a few months without any big conflicts like trips or houseguests. So probably about August 1. Sound like an excuse to postpone? Probably, but from a voice of experience.

Why do I feel the need to plan to go on Kimkins so carefully? Because it's very, very, very unforgiving. And it's not for the faint of heart. You have to commit 110% and be absolutely unswayed.

I haven't been back to the Kimkins site (linked above) in several months, and it sounds as if there are some more variations to the plan than when I was on it last summer.

Basically, Kimkins--at that time, at least--was both low carb and low fat and very low calorie. You ate the basic Atkins Induction diet except all the protein had to be lean, and it was limited to a certain # of ounces per day, or as little as possible to stave off hunger. Most people posting on the Kimkins chat boards were eating fewer than 800 or 900 calories per day, and mine added up to about 900-950. I reached the Kimkims-desired state of SNATT (slightly nauseous all the time), which meant that even though I felt a deep, deep emptiness, I didn't really feel the need to eat. But even one or two off-plan bites would send me into a weeklong stall. Once, when I was only losing two pounds a week and sent in my menus in frustration--after all, I was eating 900 calories a day--I was told that I should cut back on fat.

Seems very counter-intuitive to a traditional low-carb plan. And when I added in more fat and calories and went back to Atkins, I started losing weight again.

But who am I to question any plan since I've been doodling around not accomplishing much of anything the past few months? Kimkins does work, and it works quickly--which is plan founder Kimmer's whole point (she lost about 200 pounds on the plan), that you lose your weight fast and get on with your life. And I will likely go back on it this summer to kick-start my weight loss. I'll check to see if there are other variations to the basic plan now and report back. Stay tuned.

Oh, and best of luck, Jimmy! I'll be following your Kimkins progress with great interest--please give us frequent updates.

Off the Rails

I've been out galavanting around the Southeastern US the past few days, averaging more than four hours in the car each day with gas at $3 a gallon, but let's not even talk about that.

On the other hand, let's talk about gas prices because we really, really don't need to be talking about my unabashed, off-the-rails three days of eating fast-food in the car.

I did have a real sit-down dinner one time, at an Italian joint--don't ask--and one sit-down lunch at one of those pizza-and-sandwich bistro type places, where I had an interesting conversation (held over a lunch whose contents I'd rather not discuss but let's just say there was white flour involved) about how weight-loss programs are so very difficult to maintain concurrently with a social life.

Yeah, an excuse, I know. But it does make it hard unless you're as focused as a terrier after a...well, after anything. Terriers are really focused.

So I'm still having trouble -- after two months of this -- getting my groove back and stringing more than a few good days together at a time.

On the positive side, I've been able to maintain my 65-lb loss. On the negative side, I've been maintaining it for about three months now.

(Knocking on skull)Must.get.out.of.this.funk.

Oh, Rebiana

Now here's a scoop for you--Cargill, an "agribusiness," and Coca-Cola have filed 24 patent applications for a new artificial sweetener made from the herb Stevia.

I've read a lot about Stevia over the years but have never tried it--isn't it a little bitter?

I like the idea of this, since theoretically it would involve fewer chemicals in the diet sodas I can't seem to give up.

Anyway, this little article is short on details but does say the product's tentative name is Rebiana. And how, I ask, do they come up with names like that? At least "Splenda" and "Equal" have names that are supposed to conjure up "splendid" and "equal to sugar."

Bad news for us here in the USA: since Stevia is only approved here as a food supplement and not a food additive, the first products are likely to be outside the US. Among the countries recognizing Stevia as a food additive are Japan, Brazil and China. What about you readers out there in Great Britain or France?

However, Cargill is thought to be working on clinical trials of the sweetener and planning to use the results to petition the Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) for permission to use rebiana as a food additive in the US.

Stevia is a member of the daisy family, and the extract is said to have up to 300 times the sweetness of sugar.

By the way, I'm out of town for a few days. Look for me back and blogging on Wednesday!

What the World Eats

Fascinating issue of Time magazine is out, focusing on The Science of Appetite and the way we eat. There are several parts to the special report.

"The Science of Appetite" (link above) talks about how we're hardwired to overeat, often the wrong things, and how complex is the whole subject of appetite and weight. It's quite even-handed and doesn't begin spewing the low-fat mantra.

"How to Curb Your Appetite" offers no surprises: eat fiber, eat regular meals, brush your teeth when you're hungry. Nothing new. Although it was interesting in what it calls the "Big Three" of diets: Atkins, Weight Watchers and Ornish, and the downside of each. The downside of Atkins is that it's hard to stick to long-term; the downside of WW is that you get hungry (duh) because it espouses portion control based purely on calories; the downside of Ornish is that it's so strict it's impossible to stay on it.

But, for me, here's one really interesting part of this package of stories--"A New Diet Equation"--that talks about why and how different diets seem to work for different types of people. If you are someone who has developed metabolic resistance you likely gain weight in your midsection and have the classic "apple" shape. Apple shapes lose weight best--and keep it off longer--on low-glycemic diets. Period. End of sentence. Pear shapes can lose on either low-fat or low-carb in about equal measure, but tend to gain the weight back faster regardless of how they lost it. And the article talks about the difference between low-carb and low-glycemic diets and says that while both approaches result in greater weight loss than low-fat diets for "Apples," low-carb is faster, more effective, and also more difficult to do.

Another interesting part of the issue is What the World Eats, a photo-essay of a sample family in different countries, with their weekly food bill amount and their favorite foods. It was interesting to me because it really shows how homogeneous the "developed" world is. Samples:

• Japan: $317.25 a week. Favorite foods: sashimi; fruit; cake; potato chips
• Italy: $260.11 a week. Favorite foods: fish; pasta with ragu; hot dogs; frozen fish sticks
• Kuwait: $221.45 a week. Favorite food: chicken biryani with basmati rice
• USA: $341.98 a week. Favorite foods: spaghetti; potatoes; sesame chicken
• Mexico: $189.09 a week. Favorites: pizza; crab; pasta; chicken
• England: $253.15 a week. Favorites: avocado; mayonnaise sandwich; prawn cocktail; chocolate fudge cake with cream
• Germany: $500.07 a week. Favorites: Fried potatoes with onions, bacon and herring; fried noodles with eggs and cheese; pizza; vanilla pudding

Remind me to blog sometime about mayonnaise sandwiches. I'm astounded they appeared in England.

There are also articles on "The Biggest Loser" show, a funny first-person by a reporter who undergoes a two-day "master cleanse" fast and lives to write about it--albeit very grumpily, and a "How the World Eats" article to accompany the photo-essay.

A really fascinating issue--check it out.

A Warped View of Our Bodies, Ourselves

Thanks for all your comments on the post about "American Idol" Jordin Sparks and some skinny blonde anti-obesity lamebrain's comments about her being a bad role model for teens because of her weight.

I was particularly struck by Sheena's remark that Jordin is a size 12, and I just had to laugh and shake my head.

When I graduated from high school back in "the day" oh so long ago, I weighed 130 pounds and wore a size 12. I thought I was a hippo unfit for human society and had by that point been put on every diet known to humankind by my misguided but well-meaning mom who feared I'd end up like my dad's side of the family. You know, "big" people. I starved, exercised to distraction, sneaked food when I couldn't stand it any longer, and could never get below 130. In the process I set up a lifetime of binge eating and bad habits and metabolic resistance.

And now I'd kill to weigh 130, or anything close to it. I look back at photos of myself from that time and think, "I wasn't fat at all--how could I have thought I was?" And I don't know, except even then a size 12 made you a "big" person in terms of what we saw on TV, in magazines, and praised among the "popular" kids in school (as opposed to my geek-pals). If only we could protect our daughters and nieces from buying into what society says they should look like and just reinforce the positives of letting them be who they are.