My Final Assignment for NUTR 220 and the Tufts Certificate Program!

Well, here I am at the end of NUTR 220 and the end of the certificate program. Could 52 weeks have passed so quickly? Time flies when you’re learning a lot!

Regarding topics about which I learned the most, I’ve identified six (although this list is hardly exhaustive):

·         Platforms: I never realized how many there are! Although I did not actively engage with all of them, it was a good exercise to sign up for accounts. My social media world has been primarily limited to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Flickr. There’s a world of platforms out there to investigate.

·         Influencer Relations: This topic was new to me. I enjoyed hearing anecdotes from Amanda and Michelle about their experiences with bloggers. It must be both exciting and scary to be entering this frontier, as it’s such new territory.

·         Social TV: Until this class, I didn’t realize how popular second screen activity was while watching first screen programs. I’m intrigued to see how social TV develops. I imagine all screens will eventually merge into one, some being static, some mobile, but containing the entire experience.

·         Traakr: I was quite impressed and intrigued by this company. Social media metrics are still a big question mark for me. It’s good to know that there are smart people out there leading the way.

·         Literature Review: A first for me. I’ve always written and published papers in the humanities, which does not require the same sort of rigor expected in the sciences and social sciences. I can’t say my lit review was “traditional,’” given my topic, but I now know how to produce one if the need arises.

·         APA Style: Ditto. I’ve always used MLA. It was a challenge for me not to be creative with language, but to keep the tone of the final paper direct and straightforward. So, so different from the humanities.

As for topics I need to explore further:

·         Metrics: I am a newbie for sure. I plan to dive into this area in the next few months. It’s exciting that there are so many tools out there to explore, and that so many of them are free. I can learn a lot about my Twitter handle specifically, as currently I have little idea how visible it is in the social media space.

·         Strategy: I want to take everything I’ve learned and create a truly coherent social media presence, both personally and professionally. What platforms are best suited for my goals? What are my goals to begin with? How can social media support them and move them forward?

Short and sweet!

Signing off,

Jim

Au Bon Pain's Smart Menu is Really Smart

If you live near an Au Bon Pain and frequent the chain regularly for breakfast or lunch, did you know that you can plan your meal in advance through their website?

With Smart Menu, you can "build a better meal" by searching through the entire menu for items that are low in sodium and fat or high in protein and fiber. Once you have constructed your plate, you can then print out detailed Nutrition Facts for you entire meal.

Too much work? No problem. Au Bon Pain's website offers complete nutrition information for every item on their menu--with one simple click. Plus, you can print out a nutrition information grid for the entire menu and carry it with you.

If that's not enough, many of the cafes  feature kiosks with the same information. So if you forgot or lost your mobile device, you can still access nutrition data to help make healthy choices.

Let's hope that Au Bon Pain serves as a model for other fast food chains!

Can dieting affect your mood?

For most people, the answer to this question may seem obvious. Sure, sticking to a weight loss program can make anyone cranky. Beyond purely psychological reactions, however, new evidence begins to suggest that the type of carbohydrates you choose as part of your diet plan may actually cause a physical reaction that results in a bad mood.

Putting comfort food to the test.

A group of researchers at the Friedman School of Nutrition at Tufts University conducted a study in which healthy, overweight adults were provided with two types of carbohydrates: one group ate foods with a low GI, and the other group ate foods with a high GI. “GI” refers to “glycemic index,” which measures the ability of a carbohydrate to raise blood glucose, a precursor to diseases such as diabetes. Highly processed foods made with refined flour and sugar often have a higher GI, whereas whole foods tend to have a lower GI.

Many previous studies had found that high GI diets had a negative effect on mood, which supports the “carbohydrate-depression hypothesis,” suggesting that high carb diets improve mood through increased delivery of tryptophan to the brain. For most of us, that might translate to the “comfort-food thesis”—we turn to high GI foods such as mac ‘n’ cheese, cookies, or mashed potatoes to feel better when we’re stressed or blue.

A “sugar high” could end up being a “sugar-low.”

What the Tufts group discovered, however, was exactly the opposite: higher GI foods caused negative changes in mood, whereas lower GI foods had no effect on mood. What makes their research compelling is that the study was exceptionally controlled, which increases the likelihood of a direct cause and effect relationship between GI and mood while dieting.

So next time you decide to break your diet and reward yourself with a special treat to lift your spirits, you might want to grab the apple instead of the ice cream cone.

Stanford Study Spins Out of Control

In 2012, a team of Stanford scientists published a meta-analysis in the Annals of Internal Medicine, entitled "Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?" In a Stanford press release summarizing the study, the senior author, Dena Bravata, MD, MS is quoted as saying: "There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult making a decision based solely on your health." The release then proceeds to summarize the findings of the study as follows:

• They did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or carry fewer health risks than conventional alternatives, though consumption of organic foods reduce the risk of pesticide exposure.
• Although there is a common perception--perhaps based on price alone--that organic foods are better for you than non-organic ones, it remains an open question as to the health benefits.
• No consistent differences were seen in the vitamin content of organic products, and only one nutrient--phosphorous--was significantly higher in organic versus conventionally grown produce (and the researchers note that because few people have phosphorous deficiency, this has little clinical significance).
• Evidence from a limited number of studies suggested that organic milk may contain significantly higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids.
• While researchers found that organic products had 30 percent lower risk of pesticide contamination than conventional fruits and vegetables, organic foods are not necessarily 100 percent free of pesticides. What's more, the pesticide levels of all foods generally fell within allowable safety limits.
• As for what the findings mean for consumers, the researchers said their aim is to educate people, not to discourage them from making organic purchases.

On Sept 3, 2012, Kenneth Chang wrote a story in the New York Times entitled "Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce." It started a firestorm. The story seemed to pick up the Stanford press release as opposed to the original study, and pretty much parroted its findings. The author did, however, add his own editorializing, in particular that the study's conclusions "will almost certainly fuel the debate over whether organic foods are a smart choice for healthier living or a marketing tool that gulls people in overpaying." This single statement not only put the organic food industry on the defensive, but cast organic producers as possible shysters out for a buck. Even the findings demonstrating that organic produce and meat had benefits in excess of conventional farming methods were single-handedly deconstructed and declared clinically insignificant--the total effect of the article was to suggest organic food was likely a waste of money.

Other news organizations jumped on the bandwagon. On NPR, host David Greene told his audience:"I feel kind of duped. I mean, I was in a grocery store and was seriously thinking about buying organic raspberries the other day because I figured that, you know, organic, it must be better. I mean, how did this industry explode and become this big without someone at some point saying earlier, you know, we don't that it is any better." And the headline of the New York Daily News heralded: Organic food is not healthier...When it comes to nutrition, organic meats, produce and dairy are no better." Dozens more outlets headlined variations of the same.

Soon, bloggers from The Huffington Post made a solid, coherent effort to put the study in context. Most declared that the findings "missed the point." Here are a list of some of their more compelling criticisms:

• Food issues should not be discussed solely within a consumer frame, which ignores how the organic movement is a system that interacts with the environment and farm workers in a political way that transcends nutrients, but has much to do with biodiversity, the decline of pollinators, and effects of pesticides on farm workers, children and pregnant women.
• Many scientists pointed out the study's methodological flaws such as undercounting and the failure to meaningfully define terms.
• Nutrients and vitamins alone do not constitute "healthy." Reduction of exposure to pesticides and antibiotics contribute to overall health as well.
• The whole point of organic food is not that it's more nutritious, but that it's more environmentally sustainable. The study sets up a straw man issue only to knock it down.

Perhaps Amy Fitzpatrick's post best illustrates how spin can confuse the issues by framing them within questions that might not be the most important to consider. She points out that the NYT article begins with the question, "Does an organic strawberry contain more vitamin C than a conventional one?" She writes, "If you were hooked by this, you may have been lured into 'accepting the premise.' If you accepted the premise, you may have then thought organic food should be more nutritious and it should have more vitamins that non-organic food. It should not."

In fact, the Organic Food Production Act makes no mention of nutrition, nutrients or higher vitamin levels. It plainly states: "Neither the Organic Foods Production Act nor the NOP address food safety or nutrition."

Even Mark Bittman, a writer for the NYT, referred to the study as "flawed," calling it not only an exercise in misdirection, but a headline generator. By providing "useful" and "counterproductive" information about organic food, it "played right into the hands of the news hungry while conveniently obscuring important features of organic agriculture."

By October 15, Kenneth Chang wrote a followup in the NYT, now entitled "Parsing of Data Led to Mixed Messages on Organic Food's Value." In this article, he takes a much more balanced approach, and even cites a study ignored by the Stanford researchers that found organic food was more nutritious than conventional food.

Had Chang bothered to take more time to put together the thoughtful article rather than the controversial one, the flawed findings of the Stanford study may not have found their way onto dozens of Facebook posts and tweets spreading the misinformation.

My Introductory Blog Post

Actually, folks, this is my second post. Sorry for the false advertising!

This is a tough activity for me. I have so many interests in nutrition, and this program has only caused them to proliferate.

I guess I should confess that I am not interested in specialization--it is anathema to me. I am a generalist from top to bottom--some might say a dilettante.

I do think, however, that if there is one mission I contemplate most often, it would be to function as a consumer advocate. Not an activist--again, too specialized for my blood. But a consultant who works with people to empower them to understand where their food comes from, why it's important to plan and make meals, enjoy food without the tremendous guilt rampant in our culture--more or less to return food and eating to where it belongs--at the center of social life!

It that ambiguous or what?

More to come...

Review of Government-sponsored Nutrition Websites

Government-Sponsored Nutrition Information: A Review of 3 Websites

Nutrition.gov

Although this USDA website's taglines are "Smart nutrition starts here" and "Nutrition information for you," they're just a tease. Nutrition.gov is more or less a clearinghouse of 1,000 hyperlinks to other websites, rather than a primary source of information.

Although at first glance, the site appears to be organized by buckets, upon closer scrutiny, the categories are somewhat arbitrary and not particularly well-organized or user-friendly. For example, different FAQs appear scattered across a variety of pages, rather than logically grouped in a central location.

Indeed, this self-described "gateway" could use a gatekeeper. Rather than setting a clear agenda that lays out the important issues in the field of nutrition, the site mistakes a sometimes random accumulation of sources as an end in itself, requiring the user to dig in without much guidance. The sheer number of sites within categories, even sub-categories, would most likely be overwhelming to an average consumer. Links are nested within other links, taking the user deeper and deeper into the site, but at the same superficial level. The experience is disorienting--more like web-surfing than learning.

The site does promise that their links have been "vetted," but they don't present them in a structure that makes it easy for users to know where best to start looking for information relevant to their inquiries. For this reason, a Google search might actually be more effective. Indeed, the site feels like a relic from previous decades.

The site has minimal interactive capabilities--users can send questions via email, and wait for a response. Again, rather antiquated. As for social media, the site has a corresponding Twitter account, with maybe 3-5 tweets published per month. My guess is that USDA has neglected this site in favor of ChooseMyPlate.gov.

CooseMyPlate.gov

This site makes up for what's lacking in Nutrition.gov. It allows you to submit a question to a USDA SME, as well as houses a library of answers to FAQs that you can browse. The site also features a Service Center Locator with the addresses of agencies serving different areas with contact information how to reach them.

The site breaks down the user audience into categories that offer greater focus: college students, preschoolers, children, dieters, and pregnant/breastfeeding women. It also targets educators and health care professionals, offering them a variety of tools.

In terms of social media, the site really engages college students. It offers resources and training to be a Campus Ambassador; encourages college students to use Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, blogs, and YouTube to promote health and wellness, share recipes, and offer healthy eating tips.

The site provides interactive features such as BMI calculators and SuperTracker--a personalized nutrition and physical activity planner. This is a huge advance on Nutrition.gov.

The site has a Facebook page with posts about nutrition and exercise. However, it has only 6,460 likes, which is very small given its public profile. The site is probably not visited as much as the government would desire. The site also has a Twitter page, with many more followers (45,233) and 1757 tweets.

The YouTube link is disappointing--it's not really about My Plate. Rather, it's a bunch of videos about farming issues. Not that they aren't important, but they're not relevant to MyPlate. Perhaps a series of videos needs to be developed.

The site has a Flickr account with only 77 members. Basically, it's just a bunch of photos illustrating meals that satisfy MyPlate guidelines. Without offering any recipes, it's pretty much a throwaway.

I would give this site thumbs up.

Let'sMove.gov

Michelle Obama's site is very well organized, laid out, and easy to follow. You can sign up for email updates and follow on Facebook and Twitter. 

The site targets different audiences: parents (to create a healthy environment at home); schools (to create a healthy school environment); community and faith leaders; local elected officials (to promote improved nutrition and increase physical activity at the local level); chefs (to make good nutrition fun and appealing); and healthcare providers (to help solve the problem of childhood obesity).

As for social media, the blog has good topics, but does not have a comments feature. So the blog posts are static and don't allow for interaction. The Twitter page has 89,056 followers, and the Facebook page has 124,000 likes--pretty decent engagement. The YouTube page has 8,071 subscribers and close to million video views, but there aren't that many actual videos--could use some beefing up. The Flickr page is more or less a PR vehicle showcasing photos of the Obamas out in the community--not very relevant.

Still a good site.