As you know the F in KFC stands for fried. But not anymore. Kentucky Fried Chicken is now offering a slow grilled alternative that has almost half the fat, sodium (although it’s still high in sodium) and calories of the original fried recipe.

Sounds like a step in the right direction, but I just can’t wrap my mind around the idea of KFC being a place to eat healthy. Hopefully when people are choosing the grilled chicken they also pick better sides and drinks, such as green beans and salad (not the ceaser) while skipping the almost 200 calorie options, which include mac & cheese, BBQ baked beans and of course the home-style biscuit.

Sure the chicken is grilled, but that won’t matter if you complete your meal with 800 calories worth of sides and beverages.The garlic parmesan dipping sauce sounds delicious, but at 130 calories and 13 grams of fat it might not be the best idea.

Just for fun I tried out KFC’s nutrition calculator (click on nutrition facts) to find out what it would take to put together a decent meal. It’s a little time consuming and I can’t help but wonder if this was intended. Only the truly motivated will stick around to see the results, and they are probably not the people who would be eating at a KFC anyways.

My meal: 1 grilled chicken breast, a side salad with low fat italian dressing, a small cob of corn (no butter) and the biscuit (8 grams of fat without adding butter). It comes in at just under 500 calories, which comparitively isn’t bad. The 1640 mg of sodium is though – it’s more than half of what the CDC considers to be the upper limit for sodium intake. It’s above the limit for those with high blood pressure or over the age of 40.

The bottom line is if you already eat at KFC a grilled chicken meal is better than a fried one. But don’t fool yourself into thinking it is a great choice. If you have the willpower to be around all those temping breads, side dishes, sauces and desserts without giving in and ordering them then a KFC grilled chicken meal every once in a while isn’t going to hurt. If you often give in to temptation it’s probably best to avoid this sort of place altogether.

The grilled chicken is only in U.S. locations right now so I’ve haven’t had a chance to try it, let me know if you have and what you think about it.

crystals dieting and fitness, nutrition and health diet, nutrition

If you know anything about corn syrup, it’s likely you know it’s not that good for you, although your taste buds may disagree. Here’s the condensed version of the full story:

For some time now popular opinion has been leaning towards pinpointing the consumption of high fructose corn syrup as a major cause of obesity. On the surface it makes sense. Just after this corn-based sweetener burst onto the scene as an ingredient in everything from soda to bread, people started gaining weight – and associated conditions such as diabetes. If corn syrup is not the direct cause of obesity, say some opponents, its initial low cost was a big contributor. With the arrival of corn syrup, sugary high-calorie foods could be priced lower and purchased more often.

More recently the Corn Refiners Association has been fighting back, claiming that since corn syrup is made from corn (the reason some consider it to be natural) and has the same amount of calories as sugar, it can’t possibly be as bad as people are making it out to be. (They also have on their side the fact that the FDA has ruled corn syrup safe to consume.)

Some researchers might disagree. As explained more fully in this Prevention Magazine article, studies have found links between diets high in fructose (which corn syrup is) and certain conditions associated with diabetes. Nothing conclusive, but enough to warrant further research. (As far as I know there have been no studies that show benefits of consuming high fructose corn syrup.)

So it seems high fructose corn syrup doesn’t have many redeeming qualities beyond its sugary flavour, but it also hasn’t been proven to be harmful. Maybe the lesson here is that rather than blindly trusting the information we’re given by scientists on either side of an argument, we should trust our own instincts. And if something is being touted as being “just as good” as something else, it’s helpful to consider what that “something else” is. If corn syrup is only as good as calorie-laden, nutrient poor sugar, should the comparison really make you think that it’s ok to eat more of it?

We all know there are better sweetener options out there than corn syrup and refined sugar. Honey and agave nectar are two natural alternatives to consider. But if we smother our food in honey it will still have a negative effect on our health and waistlines. So enjoy the sweetener you prefer, as long as you do it in moderation.

crystals dieting and fitness, nutrition and health, women's fitness diet, nutrition

I’ve been getting a lot of emails recently from a certain healthy lifestyle magazine, promising me something I don’t know whether or not to believe. Before I explain, it should be noted that I am leaning slightly more towards disbelief at this point.

Prevention magazine have come up with the “Flat Belly Diet”, on which you can lose up to 15 pounds in a month and flatten out the worst of all trouble spots – your tummy.

Sounds amazing doesn’t it? It seemingly answers the prayers of workout-resistant women everywhere who just want a toned midsection, no sweat involved. But does the headline tell the whole story. Can anyone really achieve a flat stomach without so much as one crunch, plank or twist?

Don’t get me wrong, Prevention offers some solid advice, such as the fact that quality food is better than quantity. Whole grains, healthy fats (known to Flat Belly Dieters as MUFAs which stands for monounsaturated fatty acids) legumes and vegetables are encouraged, while premade meals and junk food aren’t. Sounds good so far. They also suggest dieters to eat every four hours, which is a great way to stay satisfied and avoid starvation-induced cravings. It doesn’t seem at all unreasonable that eating like this really could raise your metabolism. However, the jury is still out on whether this could help someone lose fat from a specific part of his or her body.

The problem I have with the diet actually has nothing to do with food. It’s the fact that the headline of the email I get several times a month practically screams that all this is possible with “No Exercise Required”. Is it just me or does that suggest you can be just as healthy without ever challenging your cardiovascular system or strengthening a single muscle. Obviously that’s not what they mean, but why do they feel they need to use that kind of hype to sell the diet?

Sure you can lose weight if you follow this diet. Like every other diet on the market it involves restricting calories. But there are other things to consider. Building muscle and maintaining what you already have for instance. What do you guys think of the Flat Belly Diet? Would you consider buying the book?

crystals dieting and fitness diet, nutrition