another YUM! Don't worry about the fat from the pine nuts - it's the good kind!

YUMMMM! this looks amazing. Try it for yourselves!

YUM!!!!!! Make it 10-week friendly by using whole wheat tortillas with at least 3g fiber and 3g protein per 100 calories. :)

mmmmmmmmm. so so easy!

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

THE FACTS

Skip to next paragraph

Christoph Niemann

Related

More Really? Columns

For ages, mothers have admonished children at the dinner table to slow down and chew their food. Apparently, they’re onto something.

Researchers have found evidence over the years that when people wolf their food, they end up consuming more calories than they would at a slower pace. One reason is the effect of quicker ingestion on hormones.

In a study last month, scientists found that when a group of subjects were given an identical serving of ice cream on different occasions, they released more hormones that made them feel full when they ate it in 30 minutes instead of 5 . The scientists took blood samples and measured insulin and gut hormones before, during and after eating. They found that two hormones that signal feelings of satiety, or fullness — glucagon-like peptide-1 and peptide YY — showed a more pronounced response in the slow condition.

Ultimately, that leads to eating less, as another study published in The Journal of the American Dietetic Association suggested in 2008. In that study, subjects reported greater satiety and consumed roughly 10 percent fewer calories when they ate at a slow pace compared with times when they gobbled down their food. In another study of 3,000 people in The British Medical Journal, those who reported eating quickly and eating until full had triple the risk of being overweight compared with others.

In other words, experts say, it can’t hurt to slow down and savor your meals.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Eating at a slower pace may increase fullness and reduce caloric intake.

ANAHAD O’CONNOR scitimes@nytimes.com

More Articles in Health » A version of this article appeared in print on February 23, 2010, on page D5 of the New York edition.

Slow down when you eat those 10-week approved foods! :)

YUM! And 10-week Approved!

YUM! just be sure any pasta is egg or glass noodles, and this is 10-week diet approved!

double, triple, quadruple yum!

YUMMMMMMMMMMM!

DELISH! And with those egg noodles, it's 10-week diet approved :)

Stuart Bradford

Almost four decades after the federal education law called Title IX opened the door for girls to participate in high school and college athletics, a crucial question has remained unanswered: Do sports make a long-term difference in a woman%u2019s life?

A large body of research shows that sports are associated with all sorts of benefits, like lower teenage pregnancy rates, better grades and higher self-esteem. But until now, no one has determined whether those improvements are a direct result of athletic participation. It may be that the type of girl who is attracted to sports already has the social, personal and physical qualities %u2014 like ambition, strength and supportive parents %u2014 that will help her succeed in life.

Now, separate studies from two economists offer some answers, providing the strongest evidence yet that team sports can result in lifelong improvements to educational, work and health prospects. At a time when the first lady, Michelle Obama, has begun a nationwide campaign to improve schoolchildren%u2019s health, the lessons from Title IX show that school-based fitness efforts can have lasting effects.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 required schools and colleges receiving federal money to provide the same opportunities for girls as they did for boys. Relatively few students, male or female, participate in intercollegiate sports. But the effects in high school were remarkable. Just six years after the enactment of Title IX, the percentage of girls playing team sports had jumped sixfold, to 25 percent from about 4 percent.

Most research on Title IX has looked at national trends in girls%u2019 sports. Betsey Stevenson, an economist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, has taken it a step further, focusing on state-by-state variations.

(Click to enlarge.)

%u201CI looked to see what it means to add sports to girls%u2019 lives,%u201D she said. %u201CHow does it change things for them?%u201D

States with large boys%u2019 sports programs had to make bigger changes to achieve parity than states with smaller programs. Looking at the state-by-state statistics allowed Dr. Stevenson to narrow her focus, comparing differences in sports participation with differences in women%u2019s educational and work achievement.

So her study untangles the effects of sports participation from other confounding factors %u2014 school size, climate, social and personal differences among athletes %u2014 and comes far closer to determining a cause and effect relationship between high school sports participation and achievement later in life.

Using a complex analysis, Dr. Stevenson showed that increasing girls%u2019 sports participation had a direct effect on women%u2019s education and employment. She found that the changes set in motion by Title IX explained about 20 percent of the increase in women%u2019s education and about 40 percent of the rise in employment for 25-to-34-year-old women.

%u201CIt%u2019s not just that the people who are going to do well in life play sports, but that sports help people do better in life,%u201D she said, adding, %u201CWhile I only show this for girls, it%u2019s reasonable to believe it%u2019s true for boys as well.%u201D

Another question is whether Title IX has made a difference in women%u2019s long-term health. In a carefully conducted study, Robert Kaestner, an economics professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, compared rates of obesity and physical activity of women who had been in high school in the 1970s %u2014 as Title IX was taking effect %u2014 with similar women from earlier years. Controlling the results for other influences, like age and changing diets, Dr. Kaestner was able to tease out the effects Title IX had on women%u2019s health.

He found that the increase in girls%u2019 athletic participation caused by Title IX was associated with a 7 percent lower risk of obesity 20 to 25 years later, when women were in their late 30s and early 40s. His article was published this month in the journal Evaluation Review.

Dr. Kaestner notes that while a 7 percent decline in obesity is modest, no other public health program can claim similar success. And other studies have shown that even a small drop in weight can lower risk for diabetes and other health problems.

There is still room for improvement. Today about 1 in 3 high school girls play sports, compared with about half of all boys. And participation varies widely by state, according to Dr. Stevenson%u2019s research. Southern states like Alabama, Louisiana and Tennessee still have big gender gaps, while Northern states like Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Vermont are closer to parity.

%u201CWhile we have more girls than ever before, we still have far more boys playing sports than girls,%u201D said Nicole M. LaVoi, associate director of the Tucker Center for Research on Girls and Women in Sport at the University of Minnesota. %u201CThe research clearly states that when anybody, boys and girls, are physically active, they can reap developmental and health benefits. But we haven%u2019t reached equality yet.%u201D

No way! Cool :) Go sporty girls, go!

20 Superfoods for Weight Loss

It's time for a new slim-down mantra: Eat more to weigh less. No joke! The right foods help you drop pounds by revving up your calorie burn and curbing cravings. We consulted top experts for the best picks and asked leading chefs for easy, tasty ways to prepare them. Add these eats to your plate today, and you'll be slimmer and healthier in no time!

Stockbyte

Eggs

Dig into eggs, yolks and all: They won't harm your heart, but they can help you trim inches. Women on a low-calorie diet who ate an egg with toast and jelly each morning lost twice as many pounds as those who had a bagel breakfast with the same number of calories but no eggs, a study from Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge reports. "Egg protein is filling, so you eat less later in the day," says David Grotto, R.D., author of 101 Foods That Could Save Your Life (Bantam).

Eat more: Omelettes and scrambles are obvious choices, but if you can't cook before work, bake a frittata on Sunday; chill it and nuke slices for up to a week.

Steak

Beef has a rep as a diet buster, but eating it may help you peel off pounds. In a study published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, women on a diet that included red meat lost more weight than those eating equal calories but little beef. "The protein in steak helps you retain muscle mass during weight loss," says study author Manny Noakes, Ph.D. Try to consume local organic beef; it's healthier for you and the environment.

Eat more: Grill or broil a 4-ounce serving of top round or sirloin; slice thinly to top a salad, or mix with veggies for fajitas.

Kale

Long sidelined as a lowly garnish, this green belongs center stage on your plate. One raw, chopped cup contains 34 calories and about 1.3 grams of fiber, as well as a hearty helping of iron and calcium. But kale's earthy flavor might take some getting used to. Spinach, another nutrient powerhouse, is a milder-tasting option.

Eat more: Mix chopped, raw kale into cooked black beans, says Jennifer Iserloh, founder of Skinny Chef Culinary Ventures in New York City. Or slice kale into thin strips, sauté it with vegetable broth and top with orange slices. Make it a meal by tossing the mix with quinoa.

Oats

"Oatmeal has the highest satiety ranking of any food," Grotto says. "Unlike many other carbohydrates, oats -- even the instant kind -- digest slowly, so they have little impact on your blood sugar." All oats are healthful, but the steel-cut and rolled varieties (which are minimally processed) have up to 5 grams of fiber per serving, making them the most filling choice. Instant oats contain 3 to 4 grams per serving.

Eat more: "Instead of using breadcrumbs, add oats to meat loaf -- about 1 cup for a recipe that serves eight," Iserloh recommends. Or try her recipe for turkey and oatmeal meatballs.

Lentils

Lentils are a bona fide belly flattener. "They're high in protein and soluble fiber, two nutrients that stabilize blood sugar levels," says Tanya Zuckerbrot, R.D., author of The F-Factor Diet (Putnam Adult). "Eating them helps prevent insulin spikes that cause your body to create excess fat, especially in the abdominal area."

Eat more: There are many varieties of lentils, but red and yellow cook fastest (in about 15 to 20 minutes). Add cooked lentils to pasta sauce for a heartier dish, Zuckerbrot suggests. "Their mild flavor blends right in, and because they're high in protein, you can skip meat altogether."

Goji berries

These chewy, tart berries have a hunger-curbing edge over other fruit: 18 amino acids, which make them a surprising source of protein, says chef Sarah Krieger, R.D., spokeswoman in St. Petersburg, Florida, for the American Dietetic Association. (They also have more beta carotene than carrots.) Snack on them mid-afternoon to stay satisfied until dinner. The calorie cost? Only 35 per tablespoon.

Eat more: Mix 1/4 cup of the dried berries (from health food stores) with 1/4 cup raisins and 1/4 cup walnuts for a nourishing trail mix. Or for dessert, pour 1/4 cup boiling water into a bowl with 2 tbsp. dried berries; let sit 10 minutes. Drain, then spoon over 1/2 cup low-fat vanilla frozen yogurt.

Wild salmon

Not only do fish fats keep your heart healthy, they shrink your waist, too. "Omega-3 fatty acids improve insulin sensitivity -- which helps build muscle and decrease belly fat," Grotto explains. And the more muscle you have, the more calories your body burns. Opt for wild salmon; it may contain fewer pollutants.

Eat more: You don't need to do much to enhance salmon's taste, says Sidra Forman, a chef and writer in Washington, D.C. "Simple is best. Season a fillet with salt and pepper, then cook it in a hot pan with 2 tsp, oil for one to three minutes on each side."

Apples

An apple a day can keep weight gain at bay, finds a study from Penn State University at University Park. People who chomped an apple before a pasta meal ate fewer calories overall than those who had a different snack. "Apples are high in fiber -- 4 to 5 grams each --which makes them filling," says Susan Kraus, R.D., a clinical dietitian at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey. Plus, the antioxidants in apples may help prevent metabolic syndrome, a condition marked by excess belly fat or an "apple shape."

Eat more: Apples are the ideal on-the-go low-calorie snack. For a pie-like treat, chop up a medium apple and sprinkle with 1/2 tsp. allspice and ½. tsp cinnamon. Pop in the microwave for 1 1/2 minutes.

Buckwheat pasta

Swap plain noodles for this hearty variety; you'll slip into your skinny jeans in no time. "Buckwheat is high in fiber and, unlike most carbs, contains protein," Zuckerbrot says. "Those two nutrients make it very satiating, so it's harder to overeat buckwheat pasta than the regular stuff."

Eat more: Cook this pasta as you do rice: Simmer it, covered, over low heat. For a light meal, toss cooked buckwheat pasta with broccoli, carrots, mushrooms and onions. Or make buckwheat crepes using our tasty recipe.

WOOOOOO! YUM!

Anyone who counts calories by using the figures on menus in fast-food restaurants or on the packages of frozen meals may want to count again. When researchers tested the food served in 29 chain restaurants and 10 frozen meals sold in supermarkets, they found that their calorie content averaged considerably more than the stated values.

Skip to next paragraph

Related

Health Guide: Diet - Calories

Not all restaurants were inaccurate, and a few even stated that their foods contained more calories than they actually did. Moreover, the variations were within the 20 percent margin the Food and Drug Administration allows for packaged food. (The agency does not specify maximum overage for restaurant meals, but those, too, fell within the 20 percent limit.)

For their survey, the researchers selected typical American foods that the menus said were under 500 calories. The supermarket samples were frozen complete meals that could be considered an alternative to eating out.

Some of the disparities were startling. At Denny’s, a serving of grits, listed at 80 calories, tested at 258. The label on Lean Cuisine’s shrimp and angel-hair pasta says it has 220 calories, but the researchers measured it at 319. They found 344 calories in a Wendy’s grilled chicken wrap listed at 260.

Misstatements went the other way, too. Fifteen of the samples had fewer calories than the stated amount. Denny’s dry English muffin, for example contained 6 percent fewer calories than listed on the menu. A slice of Domino’s thin-crust cheese pizza, listed at 180 calories, actually contained only 141.

The National Restaurant Association, an industry trade group, did not respond to several requests for comment, but a spokesman for Wendy’s, Bob Bertini, said the chain tested the calorie content of its foods in independent laboratories, and posted the results in its restaurants and on its Web site.

Still, he acknowledged, each meal is different. “Since our food is handmade, there can be variance in calorie counts,” he said. “One sandwich may have more mustard or mayonnaise, the next may have no lettuce or tomato.”

Susan B. Roberts, the senior author of the study, agreed that it was not fair to single out any restaurant or food manufacturer because, among other things, her study used only one sample from each vendor, and portion size can vary.

Although the average variance — 18 percent more calories than listed — is significant, she said, “we don’t know whether some restaurants are worse than others.” That would require a different study using many samples from each of many restaurants.

Manufacturers of packaged food face another problem, Dr. Roberts said. The F.D.A. imposes significant penalties for selling underweight packages. So manufacturers may err on the side of more weight, adding more calories to the product.

Dr. Roberts, who is a professor of nutrition at Tufts, said free side dishes added to the problem: they can have more calories than the main dish itself. “The calorie counts of side dishes are often listed separately,” she said, “and you don’t get an accurate count. That’s a huge source of hidden calories.”

Jennifer L. Pomeranz of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Nutrition at Yale said the study presented a clear case for government intervention. “If a restaurant voluntarily discloses calorie counts, there’s no guarantee that it’s accurate,” she said. “But when the government requires it, then the government will monitor the accuracy of the information.”

Dr. Roberts, said the impetus for the research was her own experience. She put herself on a weight-loss diet based on the calories on fast-food menus and “realized that restaurants were offering more calories than they were admitting to.”

Sign in to Recommend Next Article in Health (7 of 35) » A version of this article appeared in print on January 12, 2010, on page D7 of the New York edition.

WHOA! Scary! How can we know how many calories we are taking in?! Better off eating whole foods :)

minus the mayo, this "salad" - really an entree - is 10-week approved!

It is widely known that women tend to gain weight after giving birth, but now a large study has found evidence that even among childless women, those who live with a mate put on more pounds than those who live without one.

Skip to next paragraph

Well

Share your thoughts on this column at the Well blog.

Go to Well »

Related

Health Guide: Weight Control | Overweight

The differences, the scientists found, were stark.

After adjusting for other variables, the 10-year weight gain for an average 140-pound woman was 20 pounds if she had a baby and a partner, 15 if she had a partner but no baby, and only 11 pounds if she was childless with no partner. The number of women with a baby but no partner was too small to draw statistically significant conclusions.

There is no reason to believe that having a partner causes metabolic changes, so the weight gain among childless women with partners was almost surely caused by altered behavior. Moreover, there was a steady weight gain among all women over the 10 years of the study.

This does not explain the still larger weight gain in women who became pregnant. The lead author, Annette J. Dobson, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Queensland in Australia, suggested that physiological changes might be at work.

“Women’s bodies may adjust to the increased weight associated with having a baby,” Dr. Dobson said. “There may be a metabolic adjustment that goes on when women are pregnant that is hard to reverse. This would be more consistent with our findings than any other explanation.”

The study covered more than 6,000 Australian women over a 10-year period ending in 2006.

At the start, the women ranged in age from 18 to 23. Each woman periodically completed a survey with more than 300 questions about weight and height, age, level of education, physical activity, smoking status, alcohol consumption, medications used and a wide range of other health and health care issues.

By the end of the study, published in the January issue of The American Journal of Preventive Medicine, more than half the women had college degrees, about three-quarters had partners and half had had at least one baby. Almost all of the weight gain happened with the first baby; subsequent births had little effect.

Also by the end of the study period, there were fewer smokers and risky drinkers than at the beginning, more women who exercised less and a larger proportion without paid employment.

But even after adjusting for all of these factors and more, the differences in weight gain among women with and without babies, and among women with and without partners, remained.

Despite the study’s limitations — weight was self-reported, for example, and the sample size diminished over time because people dropped out — other experts found the results valuable.

“It’s interesting and brings out some important points,” said Maureen A. Murtaugh, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Utah who has published widely on weight gain in women. Perhaps, she suggested, a more active social life may help explain why women with partners gain more weight.

“Think of going to a restaurant,” Dr. Murtaugh said. “They serve a 6-foot man the same amount as they serve me, even though I’m 5 feet 5 inches and 60 pounds lighter.”

The study included only women, but the researchers cited one earlier study that showed an increase in obesity among men who had children, adding further evidence that social and behavioral factors are part of the explanation.

Dr. Dobson said the finding of weight gain among all the women, with families or without, was troubling.

“This is a general health concern,” she said. “Getting married or moving in with a partner and having a baby are events that trigger even further weight gain.

“From a prevention point of view, one can look at these as particular times when women need to be especially careful.”

Sign in to Recommend Next Article in Health (5 of 37) » A version of this article appeared in print on January 5, 2010, on page D5 of the New York edition.

Bummer. Major bummer, ladies. But one important point - most of these people reported exercising less as time went on. Don't be one of them! Come in to CKO to keep those pounds off!

what to indulge in and what to avoid at the New Year's buffet!

yum!

Just push yourself away from the television. You will burn more calories.

Overweight adults who cut their viewing in half for three weeks used about 120 more calories a day than a similar group of viewers, who continued watching five hours a day on average, a small research trial has found.

While 120 calories may not sound like much, it is equivalent to the number of calories burned in a one-mile walk, said Jennifer J. Otten, lead author of the paper, published in the Dec. 14-28 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine.

“We need a longer-term study to see if this would be an intervention that would help with weight loss, or even weight gain prevention,” Dr. Otten said. “But if you add it up over time, it’s equivalent to walking eight miles a week. Over a year, it might help prevent weight gain of 12 pounds.”

To carry out the trial, the researchers recruited 36 overweight and obese adults who watched at least three hours of TV a day and randomly assigned 20 of them to cut that time in half. The reduction was enforced through an electronic lock-out device. All of the participants wore armband accelerometers that measured their movements, Dr. Otten said.

Unlike children whose television time is cut, the adults did not eat less. But they spent more time in light physical activities or sedentary activities that burn more calories than watching television does — reading, playing board games or scrapbooking.

Sign in to Recommend Next Article in Health (12 of 39) » A version of this article appeared in print on December 22, 2009, on page D6 of the New York edition.

COOL! turn off the tube and start moving!

wow - what do you guys think of this? I think it's nothing compared to good, old fashioned exercise - but i suppose any little bit helps. Anyone have these "workout shoes?"