• For those looking to dodge the Hamburger Helper, the Star offers up a super-adaptable one-skillet Italian meal full of ground round and veggies.
• An interview with Erma Peterson, a teacher turned cookbook writer, featuring the tastes of Kansas City -- and her Low-Fat Chocolate Raspberry Cake recipe, to boot!
• A two-sentence ode to Domaine Chazelles Vire Clesse 2007, a clean and lemony Chardonnay.
• A lesson in aquaculture: Why we need to eat fish, how we can get it safely, the best farmed seafood and a recipe for Catfish Tacos with Red Chili Salsa.
• Partying on a budget: Why at-home entertaining is good in this economy, and how to do it right.
• A 7-day menu planner, starting with lamb chops and Pumpkin Pie Mousse with Toasted Pecans (including a recipe).
• Online nutrition tools have now extended beyond calories and fat, with additional perks like listing specific nutrients, the "fullness factor" and glycemic impact.

I wrote yesterday about how food corporations are cynically marketing sugar-sweetened foods as "healthy," a totally bogus claim. Well, the New York Times' Room for Debate blog is taking apart that and other food myths, with commentary from a handful of food writers and experts.

First, nutrition epidemiologist Barry M. Popkin demolishes the myth that fruit juice and fruit-flavored antioxidant waters are healthy. Fruit juices, he says, have just as much sugar as soda -- you're much better off eating the fruit itself and drinking some water. And antioxidant waters (like Coca-Cola's Vitamin Water) have shown zero health benefit and are full of sugar.

Next, hot dog-maker Larry Bain explains why "kosher" does not necessarily mean higher quality.

Cathy Erway of the Not Eating Out in New York blog defends pale-colored veggies like cabbage and cauliflower from the "color equals vitamins" maxim.

>Brian Wansink of Cornell's Food and Brands Lab explains that we can't really tell when we're full as long as our eyes are receiving food-related stimuli.

Josh Ozersky, author of "The Hamburger: A History" makes us think twice about the idea that grass-fed beef is automatically good.

David Kamp, Vanity Fair food writer, explains how arugula, often used as a stand-in for "fancy-schmancy" is actually a humble weed from the Mediterranean.

[Via New York Times]

A new trend piece in the New York Times suggests that too much parental emphasis on healthy eating could create neurotic kiddies who are too scared to eat a slice of birthday cake.

Nutritionists and eating disorder specialists say they're seeing an increasing number of children who are terrified of "bad" foods, whether that means non-organics, trans fats, or just regular old sugar, to such an extent that it disrupts their daily lives. "We're seeing a lot of anxiety in these kids," says Cynthia Bulik, director of the eating disorders program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "They go to birthday parties, and if it's not a granola cake they feel like they can't eat it"

Some say that "orthorexia," as one specialist has dubbed the extreme obsession with healthy eating, is a pathway to anorexia and other eating disorders. They say the problem is in rigidly categorizing foods as "good" or "bad" instead of talking about moderation - children often take moral categories very, very seriously. Of course kids shouldn't be downing liters of Coke, but nor should they be paralyzed by guilt over eating a "bad" Oreo or forced to binge on potato chips in private because eating fatty foods is "naughty."

I had two friends growing up whose parents wouldn't let them eat refined sugar and who never had anything in the pantry tastier than whole wheat crackers. When they'd come to play at my house they'd plunder our kitchen cabinets for chocolate and cookies, which they would sneak home in plastic bags to eat under the covers at night. I can't help but think that being allowed a small dish of ice cream after dinner at their own houses might have taught them better eating habits.

How did your parents teach you healthy eating habits (or not)? How do you try to encourage your own kids to eat right?

Do you find the traditional nutrition label on food packaging a tad confusing? I sometimes do, and I'm an avid nutrition-label-reader. A new system aims to simplify everything with one score.

The NuVal Nutrition Scoring System will debut in a few national supermarkets some time in the near future. The system uses a score called the ONQI (Overall Nutritional Quality Index), which will give each food item a score based on its micro-nutrients, macro-nutrients, and other "nutritional properties". The goal is for the one number to be an overall indicator of the nutritiouness of the food in question.

The score is out of 100, with 100 being the healthiest. The system wants to give consumers a quick overview of healthiness without absolute terms like "good" or "bad". There's no information on which supermarkets will be the first to adopt the sytem, but the website says to look for updates by the beginning of October.

A new report shouldn't be the least bit surprising, but it is definitely sad.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest has published a new study about the reality of kids' menus, which is jam-packed with fatty doom. They've found that 93% of the kid' options exceed the 430 calories (a third of the recommended daily calories for children from 4-8) at 13 big US chains like Taco Bell, KFC, and Burger King. And they're not talking about 10 or 20 calories over.

For example, a "Big Kids" meal with a double cheeseburger, fries, and chocolate milk at Burger King weighs in at 910 calories -- which is over half the calories a kid should take in for one day. Chilis has one that's over 1,000 calories. It's just a sea of fat to weigh down on the little ones. Also beware of those who refuse to release nutritional information like: Applebee's, TGI Friday's, Outback, Olive Garden, Red Lobster, and IHOP.

But if you're looking for something better -- Subway led the pack with its refusal to give soft drinks with kids' meals and only a third of their meals exceed 430 calories.

[via Expatriate's Kitchen]

When we learn about nutrition, we tend to focus on calories and vitamins. We're taught about which foods may prevent cancer and help our immune system. We normally concentrate on the physical effects of food on our body. It turns out however that foods have many more properties. According to a recent article from The Economist, foods also affect our cognition. They can enhance our mental health. Not only can certain foods improve our memory, but they can also prevent many of the negative effects of aging and even increase our lifespan.

Dr Fernando Gómez-Pinilla, a professor of neurosurgery and physiological science at the University of California, Los Angeles, conducted research on the way antioxidants and vitamins work with synapses in the brain. Based on his study, below are certain foods that can lead to a healthy brain:

Ah, the many ways to keep your teeth healthy: Brushing, flossing, and eating gummy bears. That's right. According to an article from this past Sunday's New York Post, a new study from researchers at the University of Washington reveals that the natural sweetener xylitol, which is used in Gummi Bears, may create healthy teeth.

Their suggested prescription?
Eat four gummy bears three times a day for six weeks. This will result in a low count of streptococcus mutans, a contributor to tooth decay. But, do not forget to make sure that they are made with xylitol which is also used in chewing gum (Orbit chewing gum and Trident gum). Interestingly, in China, Japan, and South Korea there's a brand of gum named "Xylitol" which contains the magic ingredient that keeps your teeth healthy.

Just when I thought I'd take a break from eating junk food. Gee, are there any other candies that can prevent tooth decay?

As someone with an insatiable sweet tooth, I was fascinated when I found out that hormones in our body affect how we perceive and crave sweetness. They do this according to our body's nutritional needs. Since I have a pretty bad sweet tooth, does this mean my body needs more of it? Not exactly. A recent article in The Economist explains that scientists have done the first step; they've isolated hormones that affect our palate's sensitivity to sugar.

The reason why this study is so important is because it may lead doctors and nutritionists to find a solution for ways of reducing the desire for sugar-heavy foods, and thus reduce calorie-intake. Yuzo Ninomiya, a neuroscientist at Kyushu University in Japan, researched the effects of leptin, a hormone that regulates appetite and metabolism. His results show that when leptin levels are low, we are more sensitive to sugar, which means something tastes sweeter than when our leptin levels are low. The level of the hormone increases over the day. This might explain why we tend to eat lots of sugar in the morning ('cause it tastes so good!).

So, it seems, if scientists can figure out how to raise leptin levels (or at least keep them steady) throughout the day, then all of us sweet-tooth types might have a chance at eating less cake!

In a world full of sweets, it's not easy to avoid them. What are some ways you control your sugar intake?

I'm not a big fan of the book Eat This, Not That. It purports to tell you which foods you should be eating in restaurants instead of other foods. Sometimes the comparison is good, but other times it just seems to save a person 100 calories here or a few grams of fat there and doesn't seem worth the bother (and sometimes the "eat this" choice has more carbs or salt). But I guess it's good to have the info.

Now Men's Health editor Dave Zinczenko exposes some restaurant secrets. Why don't some chains want us to know the nutritional numbers of their foods? What foods are often cooked with other foods in the kitchen? Do some fast food chains actually have healthier options than sit down restaurants?

It's official. The Worst Food in America is not the Pizza-Crepe-Taco-Pancake-Chili Bag that was famous for about 30 seconds a couple of years ago. First of all, the PCTPCB doesn't actually exist, and second of all, the Aussie Cheese Fries with Ranch Dressing from Outback Steakhouse, which does exist, has made its way to the top -- er bottom, as it were -- of Men's Health's list of the 20 Worst Foods in America.

The foods were chosen based on sheer caloric impact alone, because in the end, it all comes down to the number of calories we consume and burn. However, some "allowances" were made for excessive carbohydrates and fat, added sugars, trans fats, and sodium. After all their calculations, the Aussie Cheese Fries weigh in at 2,900 calories, 182 g fat, and 240 g carbs. Even if you do the polite thing and share the order with three other people, your starter alone will already put you over a dinner's worth of calories before the server even brings your entree to the table.

So I guess that means, order the Aussie Fries and a glass of water for dinner, right?

Perhaps one of the reasons we're having trouble with our efforts at weight loss is that we can't visualize what we are consuming. In other words, when you look at a plate of fried chicken with a heaping scoop of mashed potatoes and a brick of mac n cheese, you can't really tell how much fat and how many calories you're about to consume.

Website Foodsel is a tool that not only gives you detailed nutritional information of popular foods, but lets you visualize energy, sugar, and fat. For example. if you were to eat an entire 12" Pizza Hut cheese pizza, you'd be consuming 4.4 sugar cubes, one entire stick of butter, and would have to burn the equivalent of 87.5 D batteries. That's a lot of energy to burn.

How's that for some visual non-stimulation?

NYC's Board of Health attempted last year to pass a measure that forced fast food joints to post calorie counts on their menu boards, right where people could see them (and, I guess, be horrified by them and run screaming from the restaurant. Or...something. Not quite sure what the city's goal was).

At any rate, a judge struck down the measure, so now they're back to where they started. But they're not giving up on trying to hoard their mighty caloric knowledge on the citizens of New York! By golly, they will succeed in getting people to acknowledge the 600 calories in that Premium Crispy Chicken Ranch BLT Sandwich they're eating! And then the Board of Health officials will sleep soundly at night, feeling virtuous that they have single-handedly handled the "obesity epidemic." Right?

For the record, Burger King and McDonald's already make this information available (it took me half a minute to find how many calories were in that Chicken McWhatever listed above), they just don't advertise it like the marquee outside of Radio City. Currently, if the city's restaurants want to display their food's nutritional info, they are more than welcome to.

And I mean, really, how many people nowadays don't know that fast food is bad for them? I highly doubt that prominently displaying caloric information will make people who have already walked through a eatery's doors gawk at the fat content and walk out of the store in a huff. I mean, if I want a cookie, I'm eating the cookie knowing that it's bad for me (and even secretly reveling in that fact).

If enacted, the regulation will go into effect March 31. So, until then, we can remain uneducated, bumbling masses. Sound good?

"Hey, your kids are obese!"

Out of politeness, we normally don't point and scream such obvious statements to the people around us, but we just might have to. It seems that many parents are in total denial about their own children's obesity.

Research firm Knowledge Networks conducted a survey of 2,060 adults then collected height and weight measurements on the children from their parents to calculate body mass index. The comparison of what parents said about their children's weight -- "about right," "slightly overweight," "very overweight" -- was different from what the research firm calculated.

That's slightly alarming, given that obese children are susceptible to diabetes, high blood pressure, and cholesterol problems. Overweight children are likely to grow up to be overweight adults with the same issues. What's more alarming is that children are open to changing their dietary habits to improve, but if their parents don't help them because they can't even see a problem, well, then, that's a problem.

We all know that the Food Pyramid under went a makeover a few years ago, both in cosmetics to make it easier to understand, as well as content for updates to health and nutrition needs. However, a specially targeted Food Pyramid for older adults hasn't gotten an update in 10 years -- until now.

The new pyramid takes into account two things. With the assumption that older people are less web-savvy, the new pyramid, made available online, has more graphics and is easier to understand. We will make no comment about the "dumbing down" of web tools for older people.

The slightly more useful change is in the content of the pyramid itself. Older adults need to get enough fiber, calcium and vitamins D and B-12 via nutrient-rich fare, like fruits, vegetables, low-fat dairy and high-fiber whole grains. The pyramid also emphasizes the importance of regular exercise and adequate fluid intake.