Chicken with Basil-Mustard Sauce
Serves 4
Prep Time: 7 Minutes
Cook Time: 13 Minutes
Ingredients
2 Tablespoons flour
1/4 Teaspoon salt
1/4 Teaspoon freshly ground pepper
4 skinless boneless chicken breasts (1/4 lb each)
1- 1 1/4 Cup reduced-sodium chicken broth
1/4 Cup white wine
1 Tablespooon Dijon mustard
2 Tablespoons olive oil
2 Tablespoons chopped shallots
2 Tablespoons chopped basil
Stir together flour, salt, and pepper in a shallow bowl. Lightly dredge chicken breasts in flour mixture; reserve remaining flour.
In a bowl, combine 1 cup broth, wine, mustard. Set aside.
Heat 1 Tablespoon oil in a large skillet over medium high heat until hot but not smoking. Add chicken breasts and saute chicken until light golden, about 2 minutes per side. Transfer chicken to plate.
Put remaining tablespoon of oil into skillet. Add shallots and cook over medium heat, until beginning to brown, about 30 seconds.
Pour in wine mixture and bring to a boil over high heat.
Return chicken to skillet with any juices that have accumulated on plate.
Reduce heat to medium, cover and cook 2 minutes per side or until chicken is just done.
If sauce is too thick, whisk in remaining 1/4 cup broth. Add in basil. Mix. Serve.
Nutritional Information:
Serving Size 1 portion chicken 1/4 lb, 1/4 cup sauce
Calories:223
Fat: 8g
Carbohydrates: 5g
Protein: 28g
Fiber: <1g
Calcium: 24mg
Iron: 1mg
Sodium: 442mg
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
3 New Reasons to Breast-feed
1. You'll help raise a happier kid. Breast-fed infants are half as likely to experience anxiety throughout childhood, according to a study published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood. Mom-baby bonding strengthens babies' stress response, making them more resilient, says study author Scott Montgomery, Ph.D. a Swedish epidemiologist.
2. You'll slash your risk of diabetes. Every year a woman breast-feeds makes her 15 percent less prone to develop type 2 diabetes, according to Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. "We think that breast-feeding burns fat stored during pregnancy, so nursing moms lose slightly more weight." says researcher Alison Stuebe, M.D. "This regulates the hormone insulin, preventing diabetes over time."
3. You'll protect your infant from allergies. Exclusively nursing for six months reduces your child's exposure to solid foods. Before that age, her still-developing immune system may not tolerate foods and may produce antibodies that can trigger an allergic reaction, explains Amal Assa'ad, M.D., medical director of the Food Allergy Clinic at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.
from Shape Magazine, January 2007
2. You'll slash your risk of diabetes. Every year a woman breast-feeds makes her 15 percent less prone to develop type 2 diabetes, according to Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. "We think that breast-feeding burns fat stored during pregnancy, so nursing moms lose slightly more weight." says researcher Alison Stuebe, M.D. "This regulates the hormone insulin, preventing diabetes over time."
3. You'll protect your infant from allergies. Exclusively nursing for six months reduces your child's exposure to solid foods. Before that age, her still-developing immune system may not tolerate foods and may produce antibodies that can trigger an allergic reaction, explains Amal Assa'ad, M.D., medical director of the Food Allergy Clinic at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.
from Shape Magazine, January 2007
How Low Can You Go?
As you read this, you are burning calories. You're burning calories when you sleep. Yes, we expend calories simply by breathing, by being. Before you get too excited and run for that pint of Haagen Dazs, you should understand that the number of calories needed to sustain yourself is quite minimal and this number decreases as you age. When dieting, keep your basal metabolic rate in mind. Your caloric intake while dieting should not be drastically lower than what your body requires for maintenance. As many people who have tried crash diets have learned, if you deprive yourself of calories (and often nutrients) for an extended period of time, you can slow down your metabolism which will cause you to gain back weight quickly when you adopt healthier eating habits. The bottom line is drastically restricting your caloric intake alone can cause you to lose some weight, but lasting, long term weight loss is the result of healthy lifestyle changes: a balanced diet with controlled portions and daily exercise.
Calculate your Basal Metabolic Rate here.
Calculate your Basal Metabolic Rate here.
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Almost Sinful Butternut Squash
Here's one of my tried and true recipes that I enjoy frequently in the colder months. As a side dish the serving size is 1/2 cup, but it's so good and so low calorie that it's safe to load your plate up! I often eat a larger serving as a main course.
Butternut Squash with Poached Apples
Ingredients
1 Butternut Squash, medium
1 Apple
2 teaspoons maple syrup
salt to taste
pinch of fresh nutmeg
dash of cinnamon
cinnamon stick
a couple of allspice berries (optional)
salt to taste
Wash squash and apple. Cut squash in half and clean. Place squash, cut side down, in large pyrex baking dish and add 1/2 inch water, cinnamon stick and optional allspice. Cover with foil and bake in oven for 20-30 minutes. Cut apple in half and remove the core and seeds. Add apple, cut side down, to pan. Recover with foil and bake for an additional 20-40 minutes. Squash is done when it is soft and a fork can be easily inserted. Scoop cooked squash from skin and put in a bowl. Remove cooked apple from apple skin and add to bowl. Add maple syrup, pinch of nutmeg, dash of cinnamon and mix with a fork. Salt to taste.
Serves 8-10 as side dish
Serving size: 1/2 cup.
Calories per serving: 55 kcal
Fat per serving: .5 grams
Butternut Squash with Poached Apples
Ingredients
1 Butternut Squash, medium
1 Apple
2 teaspoons maple syrup
salt to taste
pinch of fresh nutmeg
dash of cinnamon
cinnamon stick
a couple of allspice berries (optional)
salt to taste
Wash squash and apple. Cut squash in half and clean. Place squash, cut side down, in large pyrex baking dish and add 1/2 inch water, cinnamon stick and optional allspice. Cover with foil and bake in oven for 20-30 minutes. Cut apple in half and remove the core and seeds. Add apple, cut side down, to pan. Recover with foil and bake for an additional 20-40 minutes. Squash is done when it is soft and a fork can be easily inserted. Scoop cooked squash from skin and put in a bowl. Remove cooked apple from apple skin and add to bowl. Add maple syrup, pinch of nutmeg, dash of cinnamon and mix with a fork. Salt to taste.
Serves 8-10 as side dish
Serving size: 1/2 cup.
Calories per serving: 55 kcal
Fat per serving: .5 grams
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Fact Vs. Fiction: Spice Up Your Food, Lose Weight
Really? The Claim: Spicy Foods Increase Metabolism
By ANAHAD O’CONNOR www.nytimes.com
Published: November 28, 2006
THE FACTS This being the season of dreary, mucky, frigid weather, there is good reason to indulge in foods that carry some extra kick. But is it true, as has long been held, that spicy foods not only heat you up but also speed up the metabolism?
Over the years, various studies have examined the claim and suggested that certain spices can in fact increase metabolic rate by raising body temperature, though to what extent and for how long is unclear. Capsaicin, the compound that gives red chili pepper its powerful kick, creates the largest bump in heat generation, which helps burn more calories immediately after a meal. Black pepper and ginger have similar effects.
Generally, studies have shown that on average a meal containing a spicy dish, like a bowl of chili, can temporarily increase metabolism by about 8 percent over a person’s normal rate, an amount considered fairly negligible. But besides a slight uptick in metabolism, spicy foods may also increase feelings of satiety.
One study by Canadian researchers this year looked at a group of adult men and found that those who were served hot sauce with appetizers before a meal went on to consume on average about 200 fewer calories at lunch and in later meals than their peers who did not have anything with capsaicin. The researchers suggested that capsaicin may work as an appetite suppressant. But take heed: spicy foods can also worsen symptoms of ulcers and heartburn.
THE BOTTOM LINE Research suggests that spicy foods can increase metabolism, though only to a minor extent.
By ANAHAD O’CONNOR www.nytimes.com
Published: November 28, 2006
THE FACTS This being the season of dreary, mucky, frigid weather, there is good reason to indulge in foods that carry some extra kick. But is it true, as has long been held, that spicy foods not only heat you up but also speed up the metabolism?
Over the years, various studies have examined the claim and suggested that certain spices can in fact increase metabolic rate by raising body temperature, though to what extent and for how long is unclear. Capsaicin, the compound that gives red chili pepper its powerful kick, creates the largest bump in heat generation, which helps burn more calories immediately after a meal. Black pepper and ginger have similar effects.
Generally, studies have shown that on average a meal containing a spicy dish, like a bowl of chili, can temporarily increase metabolism by about 8 percent over a person’s normal rate, an amount considered fairly negligible. But besides a slight uptick in metabolism, spicy foods may also increase feelings of satiety.
One study by Canadian researchers this year looked at a group of adult men and found that those who were served hot sauce with appetizers before a meal went on to consume on average about 200 fewer calories at lunch and in later meals than their peers who did not have anything with capsaicin. The researchers suggested that capsaicin may work as an appetite suppressant. But take heed: spicy foods can also worsen symptoms of ulcers and heartburn.
THE BOTTOM LINE Research suggests that spicy foods can increase metabolism, though only to a minor extent.
"Healthy" Calories
Virtuous Calories Are Still Calories
By DAN MITCHELL for the NYTimes online
Published: November 25, 2006
PEPSICO this week announced that it plans to acquire the Naked Juice Company as part of its effort to “expand into natural, healthy, good-for-you products” that “address growing consumer health and wellness needs.” (pepsico.com)
Many news accounts followed PepsiCo’s line. Reuters described PepsiCo as helping “health-conscious consumers cut down on sugary soft drinks and traditional snack chips” (reuters.com).
Public radio’s Marketplace program, citing Coca-Cola’s 2001 acquisition of a Naked Juice rival, Odwalla, declared that “the cola wars have taken a healthier turn” (marketplace.org).
But have they? Given an equal number of calories, fruit juices and smoothies — and particularly the “super premium” ones made by Naked Juice and Odwalla — are certainly healthier than sugary, nutrient-free soft drinks.
But calories aren’t always equal. The amount of sugar in a bottle of fruit juice or a smoothie may far surpass the amount of factory-made sweeteners found in a bottle of cola. While a 16-ounce bottle of regular Pepsi contains about 200 calories, a 16-ounce bottle of Naked Juice’s Chocolate Karma Protein Smoothie contains 380 calories, according to calorie-count.com.
Most of Naked Juice’s products have fewer calories than that — often amounts comparable to those found in nondiet soft drinks.
But childhood obesity — not a lack of vitamins — is the primary reason cited for ridding schools of soft drinks. Replacing them with sugar-laden juices might be more of a marketing move than anything else. A Marketplace reporter, Lisa Napoli, said the juices were “virtuous looking,” because they “make you feel healthy.”
The products may have lots of vitamins, but those amount to “calorie distracters,” wrote the nutrition professor and author Marion Nestle in her recent book “What to Eat” (foodpolitics.com). The nutrition claims may be valid, she wrote, but they “make you forget that juice has calories and is best consumed in limited amounts.”
By DAN MITCHELL for the NYTimes online
Published: November 25, 2006
PEPSICO this week announced that it plans to acquire the Naked Juice Company as part of its effort to “expand into natural, healthy, good-for-you products” that “address growing consumer health and wellness needs.” (pepsico.com)
Many news accounts followed PepsiCo’s line. Reuters described PepsiCo as helping “health-conscious consumers cut down on sugary soft drinks and traditional snack chips” (reuters.com).
Public radio’s Marketplace program, citing Coca-Cola’s 2001 acquisition of a Naked Juice rival, Odwalla, declared that “the cola wars have taken a healthier turn” (marketplace.org).
But have they? Given an equal number of calories, fruit juices and smoothies — and particularly the “super premium” ones made by Naked Juice and Odwalla — are certainly healthier than sugary, nutrient-free soft drinks.
But calories aren’t always equal. The amount of sugar in a bottle of fruit juice or a smoothie may far surpass the amount of factory-made sweeteners found in a bottle of cola. While a 16-ounce bottle of regular Pepsi contains about 200 calories, a 16-ounce bottle of Naked Juice’s Chocolate Karma Protein Smoothie contains 380 calories, according to calorie-count.com.
Most of Naked Juice’s products have fewer calories than that — often amounts comparable to those found in nondiet soft drinks.
But childhood obesity — not a lack of vitamins — is the primary reason cited for ridding schools of soft drinks. Replacing them with sugar-laden juices might be more of a marketing move than anything else. A Marketplace reporter, Lisa Napoli, said the juices were “virtuous looking,” because they “make you feel healthy.”
The products may have lots of vitamins, but those amount to “calorie distracters,” wrote the nutrition professor and author Marion Nestle in her recent book “What to Eat” (foodpolitics.com). The nutrition claims may be valid, she wrote, but they “make you forget that juice has calories and is best consumed in limited amounts.”
NYC Bans Trans Fat!
Many of you are familiar with my opinion that trans fats (hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated oils) should not be consumed at all. I think the only reason hydrogenated oil --a very inexpensive alternative to natural fats and oils--is still legal is because of the enormous lobbying budget of the corporations that use this product . Finally, this issue is getting the public and political attention and action it deserves.
Hydrogenated oil is commonly found in baked goods and fried foods.
NEW YORK (AP) -- The Board of Health voted Tuesday to make New York the nation's first city to ban artery-clogging artificial trans fats at restaurants -- from the corner pizzeria to high-end bakeries.
The board, which passed the ban unanimously, did give restaurants a slight break by relaxing what had been considered a tight deadline for compliance. Restaurants will be barred from using most frying oils containing artificial trans fats by July and will have to eliminate the artificial trans fats from all of their foods by July 2008.
But restaurant industry representatives called the ban burdensome and unnecessary.
"We don't think that a municipal health agency has any business banning a product the Food and Drug Administration has already approved," said Dan Fleshler, a spokesman for the National Restaurant Association.
The ban contains some exceptions; for instance, it would allow restaurants to serve foods that come in the manufacturer's original packaging.
Why trans fats are bad
Trans fats are believed to be harmful because they contribute to heart disease by raising bad cholesterol and lowering good cholesterol at the same time. Some experts say that makes trans fats worse than saturated fat.
The panel also passed another measure that has made restaurants unhappy: Some that choose to inform customers about calorie content will have to list the information right on the menu. The rule would generally apply to fast-food restaurants and other major chains.
Sheila Weiss, director of nutritional policy for the Restaurant Association, said the rule would be a disincentive for restaurants to provide any nutritional information.
Trans fats are formed when liquid oils are made into solid fats by adding hydrogen in a process called hydrogenation. A common example of this is partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, which is used for frying and baking and turns up in processed foods like cookies, pizza dough and crackers. Trans fats, which are favored because of their long shelf life, are also found in pre-made blends like pancake and hot chocolate mix.
The FDA estimates the average American eats 4.7 pounds of trans fats each year.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who banned smoking in bars and restaurants during his first term, has dismissed cries that New York is crossing a line by trying to legislate diets.
"Nobody wants to take away your french fries and hamburgers -- I love those things, too," he said recently. "But if you can make them with something that is less damaging to your health, we should do that."
Some use already halted
Many food makers have stopped using trans fats on their own after the FDA began requiring companies to list trans fat content on labels.
McDonald's Corp. has been experimenting with more than a dozen healthier oil blends but has not committed to a full switch. At an investor conference last month, CEO Jim Skinner said the company is making "very good progress," at developing an alternative, and vowed to be ready for a New York City ban.
Wendy's International Inc. introduced a zero-trans fat oil in August and Yum Brands Inc.'s KFC and Taco Bell said they also will cut the trans fats from their kitchens.
Chicago is also considering its own trans fat law, which wouldn't ban the fats outright but would severely restrict the amount that kitchens can use. The measure would apply only to large restaurants, defined as those that make more than $20 million in sales per year.
New York's move to ban trans fats has mostly been applauded by health and medical groups, although the American Heart Association warns that if restaurants aren't given ample time to make the switch, they could end up reverting to ingredients high in saturated fat, such as palm oil.
The board, which passed the ban unanimously, did give restaurants a slight break by relaxing what had been considered a tight deadline for compliance. Restaurants will be barred from using most frying oils containing artificial trans fats by July and will have to eliminate the artificial trans fats from all of their foods by July 2008.
But restaurant industry representatives called the ban burdensome and unnecessary.
"We don't think that a municipal health agency has any business banning a product the Food and Drug Administration has already approved," said Dan Fleshler, a spokesman for the National Restaurant Association.
The ban contains some exceptions; for instance, it would allow restaurants to serve foods that come in the manufacturer's original packaging.
Why trans fats are bad
Trans fats are believed to be harmful because they contribute to heart disease by raising bad cholesterol and lowering good cholesterol at the same time. Some experts say that makes trans fats worse than saturated fat.
The panel also passed another measure that has made restaurants unhappy: Some that choose to inform customers about calorie content will have to list the information right on the menu. The rule would generally apply to fast-food restaurants and other major chains.
Sheila Weiss, director of nutritional policy for the Restaurant Association, said the rule would be a disincentive for restaurants to provide any nutritional information.
Trans fats are formed when liquid oils are made into solid fats by adding hydrogen in a process called hydrogenation. A common example of this is partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, which is used for frying and baking and turns up in processed foods like cookies, pizza dough and crackers. Trans fats, which are favored because of their long shelf life, are also found in pre-made blends like pancake and hot chocolate mix.
The FDA estimates the average American eats 4.7 pounds of trans fats each year.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who banned smoking in bars and restaurants during his first term, has dismissed cries that New York is crossing a line by trying to legislate diets.
"Nobody wants to take away your french fries and hamburgers -- I love those things, too," he said recently. "But if you can make them with something that is less damaging to your health, we should do that."
Some use already halted
Many food makers have stopped using trans fats on their own after the FDA began requiring companies to list trans fat content on labels.
McDonald's Corp. has been experimenting with more than a dozen healthier oil blends but has not committed to a full switch. At an investor conference last month, CEO Jim Skinner said the company is making "very good progress," at developing an alternative, and vowed to be ready for a New York City ban.
Wendy's International Inc. introduced a zero-trans fat oil in August and Yum Brands Inc.'s KFC and Taco Bell said they also will cut the trans fats from their kitchens.
Chicago is also considering its own trans fat law, which wouldn't ban the fats outright but would severely restrict the amount that kitchens can use. The measure would apply only to large restaurants, defined as those that make more than $20 million in sales per year.
New York's move to ban trans fats has mostly been applauded by health and medical groups, although the American Heart Association warns that if restaurants aren't given ample time to make the switch, they could end up reverting to ingredients high in saturated fat, such as palm oil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
