BEST DIET : LOSE WEIGHT WITH BEST TRICK

I have a paunch, but I hide it pretty well. Like lots of men, I collect calories in my belly—what scientists call the visceral region, my gut. It’s easy to conceal: many ordinary men’s shirts are pyramid-shaped, so they fit neatly at the shoulders and then billow a bit as they go south. But they can also hide a health problem: even if you’re not overweight, having excess belly fat can lead to serious cardiovascular disease and other illnesses. In fact, as new research shows, those who have normal weight but concentrated “central” fat are more than 50% more likely to die earlier from all causes than those who are obese.

A team of eight scientists presented the research in Munich on Aug. 27 at a European Society of Cardiology meeting. Led by Dr. Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic, the scientists examined data for 12,785 Americans who had been tracked for approximately 14 years for a major CDC study. Lopez-Jimenez and his team reviewed information on both body-mass index (BMI)—a measure of how fat you are in proportion to your height—and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), the circumference of your belly in relation to the circumference of your hips. (You can calculate your BMI here and your WHR here.)

The researchers divided the survey participants into three categories of BMI—normal, overweight, and obese. They also divided them into two categories of waist-to-hip ratio—normal and high. (They defined normal as less than .85 for women and less than .90 for men and high as .85 or higher for women and .90 or higher for men.) That left them with six subgroups: normal BMI/normal central fat; normal BMI/high central fat; and so on. This all gets confusing, but the chart here shows all six groups.

MORE: To Lose the Beer Gut, Try the Treadmill, Not the Dumbbells

At the end of the 14-year follow-up period in the CDC survey, 2,562 people in the sample had died. When Lopez-Jimenez and his colleagues analyzed the deaths, they found that those with a normal BMI but excessive belly fat had the highest risk of mortality of all six groups, even after accounting for early-death risk factors such as age, sex, race, smoking, hypertension, and diabetes. In fact the normal BMI/high central fat group had a higher death rate than all of the participants who were obese, irrespective of waist-to-hip ratios.

The risk of dying during the CDC survey was 2.1 times higher for those with normal BMI and high waist-to-hip ratio than for people of normal weight and waist ratio. For obese people, the risk of mortality was still high—about 1.4 times higher than normal—but, says Lopez-Jimenez, “The level of risk attributed to normal weight [but] central obesity appears to be similar to that of smoking a pack a day.”

MORE: Why Being Thin Doesn’t Always Mean Being Healthy

That’s a substantial risk, and the reasons central fat is so hazardous to our health aren’t entirely clear yet. But Lopez-Jimenez says there are three main theories to explain the connection:

1. Previous research shows that belly fat is metabolically different from other types of fat. Visceral fat cells are more likely to release certain hormones that promote insulin-resistance, a condition that can lead to diabetes. “The fact that visceral fat is next to the gut makes it highly active from a metabolic standpoint,” says Lopez-Jimenez. “So that, by itself, would cause inflammation [and] insulin resistance.”

2. As some recent data is showing, other kinds of fat—particularly fat in the legs and buttocks—is associated with a healthier metabolic profile. “It seems to be exactly the opposite of visceral fat,” says Lopez-Jimenez. “The more fat in the legs, the better the profile: better cholesterol, lower glucose, lower triglycerides, and lower insulin.” He admits that this research is “very new and very strange,” but at least two studies (one here and one here) have found that lower-body fat may offer some metabolic benefits, especially in comparison with belly fat.

3. Lopez-Jimenez speculates that people with lots of abdominal fat have less muscle mass, possibly because they exercise less. Muscles are fed by glucose, so they tend to soak up the fat we eat far more efficiently than fat cells. That’s one reason exercise can help people from gaining weight (although exercise alone contributes little to weight loss).

The new study is fascinating but controversial. As my colleague Alice Park has written, previous research suggests that BMI and waist-to-hip ratio have about the same predictive value in assessing risk for heart disease. The data presented in Munich does go a step further—evaluating not only risk for heart ailments but the likelihood of death from all causes—but the analysis will have to be replicated before the debate can be settled.

MORE: Being Big Around the Middle Poses Big Risks

In the meantime, what this means for your diet isn’t so different from any other nutrition advice. As writer Michael Pollan has said, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” As for my own paunch, I’m trying not to kid myself. Even though I still fit into my low-slung jeans, my belly now hangs over. I’m not obese, but I may be worse off.

Is there anything sadder than the foods of the 1950s? Canned, frozen, packaged concoctions, served up by the plateful, three meals per day, in an era in which the supermarket was king, the farmer’s market was, well, for farmers, and the word locavore sounded vaguely like a mythical beast. We knew far less of flavor or freshness or artisanal excellence than we do now. We were culinary rubes and too clueless even to know it.

Of course, the food of that primitive era was affordable and nutritious. It was easy to prepare and it was always there. You loved it as a kid, and, be honest, you still love a lot of it now. What, you’re suddenly too good for peanut butter? For tuna salad? For jars of pickles and cans of baked beans and a carton of perfectly delicious ice cream that isn’t priced like truffle oil? Becoming food savvy is one thing, but it’s amazing how fast savvy turns to snooty, and snooty leaves you preparing three-hour meals that break your budget and that the kids won’t even eat.

(MORE: Cheap vs. Expensive Foods: What Wins at Checkout?)

When our culture shifts, it tends to overcorrect, throwing out everything associated with an era we’ve moved past, rather than saving what was good and combining it with what is new. And when it comes to diet, a whole lot of what’s old and good involves the ordinary supermarket and some of the familiar foods on its shelves. Nutritionists and menu planners have increasingly been taking a second look at what we’ve dismissed as dreary, down-market and somehow below us, and coming to the rather surprising conclusion that there is plenty of room for a lot of it in our recipes and on our tables.

Take a block of frozen vegetables for instance. The flash-freezing method introduced in the 1920s by inventor Clarence Birdseye (yes, that’s how they got the name) works so quickly and at such low temperatures that it prevents water and flavor from being extracted because of the formation of taste-robbing ice crystals. Meantime, all but the most water-soluble vitamins — basically C and the various B’s — survive the freezing process perfectly well, and the B’s and C degrade only a little, particularly if the food is steamed instead of blanched before freezing. It worked then, it works now, and it tastes just fine.

(MORE: Is It Worth Buying Organic? Maybe Not)

Canning is a little dicier, particularly since not all foods (think asparagus) take to the canning process so well. But the overwhelming majority do, and most manufacturers also offer lower-sodium alternatives, which is a big improvement over the almost lethally salted brands of the past. Canned tuna, salmon and chicken similarly retain virtually all their nutritional octane and are a whole lot easier to prepare than their higher-end, butcher-counter raw versions. An April study conducted by researchers at Tufts University looked at a range of canned foods — including corn, tomatoes, pinto beans, spinach and tuna — and found that in every case, the nutrition was terrific and the cost savings were considerable.

“There is increasing conversation around ‘fresh foods,’ especially fruits and vegetables, as being more nutritious,” said lead author Cathy Kapica when the report was released. “Yet this supposition has not been supported by evidence.”

Up and down the supermarket aisles, the same thing is turning out to be true, as other familiar comfort foods are enjoying a sort of public rediscovery and acceptance. It’s the 99% diet — cheaper and healthier than you think — perfectly suited to an era of both tightened belts and expanding waistlines. Yes, there are still things to avoid. It will never be a good idea to load your supermarket cart with Fluffernutter, pork rinds,  frozen corn dogs and Twinkies (O.K., that last one may have taken care of itself). But with a little smart label reading and a little self-restraint, everything (or at least most things) old can be very new — and tasty — again.

Read the full TIME cover story on rediscovering the nutrient-rich foods on grocery-store shelves, available to subscribers, here.

MORE: What’s So Great About Organic Food?

The Mediterranean diet is a well-known weapon in the fight against heart disease, but exactly how effective is it?

To find out, researchers led by Dr. Ramón Estruch, from the Department of Internal Medicine at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, put the Mediterranean diet to the test against a low-fat diet. They followed participants to track rates of heart attack, stroke and heart-disease-related death. After nearly five years, the results were so striking for one group that the study was stopped early, according to research published online by the New England Journal of Medicine.

The group that showed the least heart problems and lowest rate of heart disease deaths? Those who ate a Mediterranean diet high in extra-virgin olive oil. Coming in at a close second were participants who ate a Mediterranean diet high in nuts. Compared with those eating the low-fat diet, the extra-virgin-olive-oil group showed a 30% lower risk of having a heart attack, stroke or dying of heart disease after five years, while those consuming the Mediterranean diet with more nuts showed a 28% lower risk of these outcomes.

(MORE: Mediterranean Diet Linked to Lower Child-Asthma Risk)

“We think the strength of this study comes from the fact that we measured hard outcomes and not just blood pressure or changes in cholesterol levels,” says Estruch. “We really believe the Mediterranean diet lowers incidence of [heart attack], stroke and cardiovascular deaths.”

Previous studies have linked Mediterranean diets to fewer heart attacks and deaths from heart disease, but most of those have correlated people’s recall of their diet with heart-disease outcomes rather than randomly assigning participants to eat specific diets and then following them for heart-disease risk, as Estruch and his colleagues did.

In the study, the participants in the Mediterranean diet groups agreed to replace red meat with white meat like chicken and eat three or more servings of fish each week, along with three or more servings of fruit and two or more servings of vegetables a day. The extra-virgin-olive-oil group also consumed more than four tablespoons of the oil a day, replacing regular olive oil with the extra-virgin variety, which contains more potentially heart-healthy compounds like polyphenols and vitamin-E tocopherols — which can lower levels of inflammatory factors that contribute to heart disease — in addition to oleic acids, which are lower in the saturated fat that can build up in blood vessels. The group that consumed more nuts was asked to eat a combination of 30 g of walnuts, almonds and hazelnuts every day. These groups were also asked to stay away from sodas and red meats. The participants eating the low-fat diet ate three or more servings of fish or seafood a week and the same amount of fruit and vegetables as the Mediterranean diet groups. They were discouraged from consuming more than two tablespoons of vegetable oils, including olive oil, each day.

(MORE: Can Olive Oil Help Prevent Stroke?)

To ensure that other factors that could affect heart-disease rates were not playing a role, the researchers also adjusted for the total amount of calories the groups were eating, since obesity can be a major contributor to heart attack and stroke. Even after making these adjustments, however, the olive-oil group showed statistically significant drops in heart-disease risk. And because the three groups were randomly assigned to their diets, Estruch says that factors like the amount of exercise the participants did, or the medications they took, would be about the same in all three groups, and thus affect all participants equally.

Estruch says that the study has some limitations, most notably that the low-fat diet group may not have had as intense an intervention during the first part of the study as the Mediterranean groups did, potentially biasing the results in favor of the Mediterranean diet. Some volunteers also dropped out, most of whom had higher body mass index on average, which may also skew the results toward a beneficial effect of the Mediterranean diet, since the individuals who remained might have been more motivated to take care of their hearts to begin with.

Still, the findings add to the body of evidence that suggests the Mediterranean diet can play an important role in protecting the heart, and should guide doctors and patients who want to avoid heart disease toward eating the foods that can help them the most.

The Mediterranean diet is a well-known weapon in the fight against heart disease, but exactly how effective is it?

To find out, researchers led by Dr. Ramón Estruch, from the Department of Internal Medicine at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, put the Mediterranean diet to the test against a low-fat diet. They followed participants to track rates of heart attack, stroke and heart-disease-related death. After nearly five years, the results were so striking for one group that the study was stopped early, according to research published online by the New England Journal of Medicine.

The group that showed the least heart problems and lowest rate of heart disease deaths? Those who ate a Mediterranean diet high in extra-virgin olive oil. Coming in at a close second were participants who ate a Mediterranean diet high in nuts. Compared with those eating the low-fat diet, the extra-virgin-olive-oil group showed a 30% lower risk of having a heart attack, stroke or dying of heart disease after five years, while those consuming the Mediterranean diet with more nuts showed a 28% lower risk of these outcomes.

(MORE: Mediterranean Diet Linked to Lower Child-Asthma Risk)

“We think the strength of this study comes from the fact that we measured hard outcomes and not just blood pressure or changes in cholesterol levels,” says Estruch. “We really believe the Mediterranean diet lowers incidence of [heart attack], stroke and cardiovascular deaths.”

Previous studies have linked Mediterranean diets to fewer heart attacks and deaths from heart disease, but most of those have correlated people’s recall of their diet with heart-disease outcomes rather than randomly assigning participants to eat specific diets and then following them for heart-disease risk, as Estruch and his colleagues did.

In the study, the participants in the Mediterranean diet groups agreed to replace red meat with white meat like chicken and eat three or more servings of fish each week, along with three or more servings of fruit and two or more servings of vegetables a day. The extra-virgin-olive-oil group also consumed more than four tablespoons of the oil a day, replacing regular olive oil with the extra-virgin variety, which contains more potentially heart-healthy compounds like polyphenols and vitamin-E tocopherols — which can lower levels of inflammatory factors that contribute to heart disease — in addition to oleic acids, which are lower in the saturated fat that can build up in blood vessels. The group that consumed more nuts was asked to eat a combination of 30 g of walnuts, almonds and hazelnuts every day. These groups were also asked to stay away from sodas and red meats. The participants eating the low-fat diet ate three or more servings of fish or seafood a week and the same amount of fruit and vegetables as the Mediterranean diet groups. They were discouraged from consuming more than two tablespoons of vegetable oils, including olive oil, each day.

(MORE: Can Olive Oil Help Prevent Stroke?)

To ensure that other factors that could affect heart-disease rates were not playing a role, the researchers also adjusted for the total amount of calories the groups were eating, since obesity can be a major contributor to heart attack and stroke. Even after making these adjustments, however, the olive-oil group showed statistically significant drops in heart-disease risk. And because the three groups were randomly assigned to their diets, Estruch says that factors like the amount of exercise the participants did, or the medications they took, would be about the same in all three groups, and thus affect all participants equally.

Estruch says that the study has some limitations, most notably that the low-fat diet group may not have had as intense an intervention during the first part of the study as the Mediterranean groups did, potentially biasing the results in favor of the Mediterranean diet. Some volunteers also dropped out, most of whom had higher body mass index on average, which may also skew the results toward a beneficial effect of the Mediterranean diet, since the individuals who remained might have been more motivated to take care of their hearts to begin with.

Still, the findings add to the body of evidence that suggests the Mediterranean diet can play an important role in protecting the heart, and should guide doctors and patients who want to avoid heart disease toward eating the foods that can help them the most.

Thank the olive oil or the nuts, but something about the Mediterranean diet could help older brains act young again.

There’s plenty of evidence that the Mediterranean diet can contribute to a lower risk of heart attacks, stroke, childhood asthma and even cancer. In fact, in a recent study, researchers assessed about 200 traditional Greek Mediterranean foods and reported that taken together, the foods could make 1,024 relevant health claims.

(MORE: Mediterranean Diet Improves Memory, but Not in Diabetics)

And in May, a team of researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and the University of Athens found that people around age 64 who primarily ate a Mediterranean diet had a lower risk of memory loss.

So perhaps it’s not that surprising that in the latest study, published in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, researchers reported similar brain-boosting findings. Except this time, the results showed that the Mediterranean diet was significantly better than a low-fat diet in preserving brain function. The researchers, from the University of Navarra in Spain, studied 522 men and women between the ages of 55 and 80 who did not have heart disease, but were at a higher risk of having circulation-based events like a stroke because of diabetes or a combination of risk factors such as high blood pressure, a family history of stroke, or being overweight.

The participants were split into three diet groups: one consumed a Mediterranean diet with extra-virgin olive oil, another ate a Mediterranean diet supplemented with mixed nuts, and the control group was assigned a low-fat diet. The typical Mediterranean diet includes plenty of olive oil, fruits, vegetables, grains and fish, with moderate amounts of dairy and meat.

All of the participants agreed to complete extensive cognitive tests after about 6½ years, in which the researchers assessed their higher cognitive functions such as their language skills, their ability to orient themselves to time and place, their capacity for abstract thinking and their memory.

(MORE: It’s the Olive Oil: Mediterranean Diet Lowers Risk of Heart Attack and Stroke)

By the end of the study, 60 of the participants had developed mild cognitive impairments and 35 developed dementia. Among the participants with mild cognitive decline, 18 consumed the diet with added olive oil, 19 had eaten the diet with additional nuts, and 23 were assigned the low-fat diet. Among the dementia patients, 12 were on the diet with added olive oil, six on the version with added nuts, and 17 were on the low-fat diet.

The cognitive-function tests showed that on average, those consuming either version of the Mediterranean diet scored significantly higher than the low-fat dieters. Because the participants were Spanish men and women, it’s possible that other lifestyle or cultural factors played a role in the results. But even after adjusting for factors such as age, family history of cognitive problems and dementia, education and even depression, which can affect cognitive function, the beneficial effect of the Mediterranean diet remained.

Many studies have linked the diet to health improvements, and researchers are starting to pin down some of the factors that could be driving these effects. In this study, the researchers noted that the Mediterranean diet groups might have exploited the high levels of antioxidants and anti-inflammatory agents in the foods.

“Oxidative stress has been associated with neurodegeneration. The main components of the [Mediterranean-diet] intervention in the … trial, extra-virgin olive oil and nuts, have antioxidant properties and, together with other polyphenol-rich foods in the [Mediterranean diet], are suggested to relate to improved cognitive function,” the authors wrote in the study. They also suggested that the beneficial effects of the Mediterranean diet come from improvements in underlying risk factors that otherwise could contribute to strokes or other related health problems.

(MORE: Mediterranean Diet Linked to Lower Child-Asthma Risk)

The study involved a small number of participants, and the volunteers were at higher risk of developing heart or vascular issues, but it did follow them for an extended period of time. So it’s not clear whether the same benefits would hold for the general population, but the researchers say the findings strengthen the link between diet and cognitive function. So far, other studies are also finding similar benefits among Americans favoring the Mediterranean diet, but more studies are needed to assess whether the effects of the diet are universal. If they support these results, however, olive oil and nuts could become useful weapons in holding off age-related cognitive decline.

In order to figure out how Facebook affects young girls’ sense of body image, researchers from American University in Washington D.C. asked 103 adolescent girls to complete 20-30 minute surveys over the course of a week. The girls were asked about their Facebook usage as well as  about their body image.

(MORE: Why Facebook Makes You Feel Bad About Yourself)

They found that the type of information the girls accessed on the site, in addition to how long they spent on Facebook, had the greatest influence on how they felt about themselves afterward.

In the study published in the journal Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, the scientists assessed how frequently the girls used specific Facebook features, such as “create an event,” or “view friends’ photos of themselves” by asking the participants to rate their typical use for each of the features on a 5-point scale from 1 for “almost never or never” to 5 for “nearly every time I log on.”

Girls who allocated the most time to photo-related activities were more likely to internalize a thin ideal, succumb to self-objectification, be dissatisfied with their weight, or report having a drive to become thin. Based on the data, the researchers were not able to determine whether adolescents who already had issues with self appearance were drawn to looking at photo-related Facebook posts, or if the images influenced the girls’ body image.

But they speculate that both may be at work, similar to the way beauty magazines influence how girls view themselves. Such images can both seed and exacerbate the way girls apply social ideals of appearance to themselves. “The nature of Facebook photo sharing may expedite this process,” the study authors write.

(MORE: Two-Faced Facebook: We Like It, but It Doesn’t Make Us Happy)

Such objectification may also contribute to eating disorders, making the influence of Facebook photos worth studying as a potential contributor to unhealthy diets, said Brenda K. Wiederhold, editor-in-chief of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, in a statement. “Given the connection between eating disorders and body image distortion and dissatisfaction, it is important to identify contributing factors in this particularly vulnerable group. By identifying these factors, we can move towards designing more effective prevention programs.”

Dieting is hard, but it turns out there are specific things that make us more likely to fall off the wagon.

In a new study published in the journal Annals of Behavioral Medicine, researchers found that people are more likely to give into alcohol than a sugary snack, and friends are especially hard to refuse.

In the study, researchers followed 80 people who were dieting for one week. All the participants used cell phones to record their diet temptations and when they gave into temptation. Participants failed at their diets about half the time, particularly at night. Alcohol was one of the greatest temptations, more so than sugary snacks. Dieters were also more likely to lapse when other people were around.

The participants did report greater awareness of their eating when recording their diets, which suggests that cellphones could be a useful tool to keep dieters on track.

When addicts talk about their first euphoric experience with their narcotic of choice, very often they describe it as the feeling they spent the duration of their drug-using years attempting to revisit. It turns out, the same phenomenon of “chasing the high” may apply to overweight and obese women’s response to food as well.

A study released online on Sept. 29 in the Journal of Neuroscience found that as women overate and gained weight, they got less pleasure from eating. In brain scans, these women showed less activity in the “reward” pathways of the brain — the neurological corridors that respond to pleasure — after eating. (More on Time.com: Why Americans Are Fat: We Literally See More Food as Less)

University of Texas at Austin psychologist Eric Stice studied 26 overweight and obese volunteers, who were subjected to fMRI brain scans as they sipped both sugary milkshakes and a flavorless liquid. The group was tested twice over 6 months. Those who gained weight over the course of the study showed a corresponding muted pleasure response to the milkshake. Women who lost or maintained weight did not show the same decrease. (More on Time.com: Want Good Health? There Are 10 Apps for That)

Obese people are known to have fewer pleasure receptors in the brain than thin people to start, according to the new study, whose findings suggest that overeating blunts the reward pathway further. New Scientist reports:

The result suggests that overeating may push people onto a slippery slope akin to a drug addict’s craving for ever-larger doses. “People are having to eat more and more to chase the high,” says Stice.

More studies are needed in this area, to sample a larger group of people and to figure out whether the “tolerance” can be reversed by weight loss.

More on Time.com:

The ‘Other’ Salt: 5 Foods Rich in Potassium

Overcoming Obesity

Every office has at least one: a giant bowl of bite-size candy bars, peppermints, chocolate Kisses and other high-sugar treats. It’s hard to resist its gravitational pull, especially when you’re suffering from a post-lunch blood-sugar dip in the late afternoon.

Some say the bowls of free sweets help lift office spirits. Problem is, they also hike the needle on the scale. Research confirms that office snacking is a measurable phenomenon. According to Sue Shellenbarger at the Wall Street Journal:

A four-week study of 40 secretaries found that when candy was visible in a clear, covered dish, participants ate 2.5 pieces of chocolate on top of the 3.1 candies they would have eaten had the chocolates been in an opaque container, according to the 2006 study in the International Journal of Obesity. Moving the dish closer, so the subjects could reach the candy while seated at their desks, added another 2.1 candies a day to their intake.

“The proximity and visibility of a food can consistently increase an adult’s consumption,” says the study, led by Brian Wansink, a professor of marketing and human behavior at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., and author of “Mindless Eating.” He adds, “Even for a person with the greatest resolve, every time they look at a candy dish they say, ‘Do I want that Hershey’s Kiss, or don’t I?’ At the 24th time, maybe I’m kind of hungry, and I just got this terrible email, and my boss is complaining — and gradually my resolve is worn down.”

And while a tiny morsel of chocolate might seem harmless, consider the cumulative effects of habitual snacking. Eating just two pieces of candy a day at work adds about 480 calories to your weekly total intake, the WSJ calculates — that’s a whopping 1,920 extra calories per month. So is it any wonder that you’ve gained 5 or 7 lbs. in the last year?

What can you do to keep yourself out of the candy bowl, and away from the pastries, cakes, doughnuts and other fattening foods in the break room? One strategy is always to have your own snacks on hand. If you’ve got fruit, nuts or sugar-free gum within easy reach, that doughnut will seem far less alluring. Or you can try to get the whole office to participate in a diet makeover: encourage coworkers to bring fresh fruit and salads to meetings and potlucks, instead of high-fat foods like brownies and mac-and-cheese.

Maybe someday, the workplace candy culture will go the way of the three-martini lunch and Mad Men-era office smoke breaks. But until then, you may have to take it upon yourself to watch your diet. As Shellenbarger reports, Melanie Meek, an employee of a Canton, Ohio, real-estate firm, has lost 80 lbs. since 2009, in part by asking her co-workers keep their unhealthy snacks out of sight. She told them: “If I have to smell it, I will move it.”

There are so many healthy reasons to eat vegetables that it feels redundant to keep enumerating them. But if a stronger immune system, cancer-fighting antioxidants and heart-healthy fiber aren’t reason enough for some, perhaps we can appeal to their vanity: a study published in the journal Evolution and Human Behaviour found that eating foods high in carotenoids — a nutrient found in some fruits, leafy greens and root vegetables — gave them a healthy glow that rivaled a sun tan and made them more attractive in tests. (More on Time.com: Eat Veggies, Cheat Death)

“We found that, given the choice between skin color caused by suntan and skin color caused by carotenoids, people preferred the carotenoid skin color,” Dr. Ian Stephen, the study’s lead researcher, now of the School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus, said in a statement. “So if you want a healthier and more attractive skin color, you are better off eating a healthy diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables than lying in the sun.”

People with diets high in fruits and vegetables had demonstrably yellower skin, the researchers found. But the scientists weren’t sure if the veggie glow would be perceived differently than one achieved by sitting in the sun. So they asked study participants to look at 51 different Caucasian faces and adjust the skin tones to the hues, ranging from those typical of a day in the sun to the glow from a carotenoid-rich diet, that they thought looked healthiest. (More on Time.com: 5 New Rules for Good Health)

Reported California Watch:

The students could adjust the skin tone of the photographed faces, making them more yellow, more suntanned or more pale.

According to the new study, the students found yellower faces more attractive and healthy looking.

Want the glow? Try upping your intake of carrots, tomatoes, sweet potatoes, bell peppers, cantaloupe, spinach and kale.

Related Links:

10 New Diet Books for 2011

5 Ways to Improve Your Diet on the Cheap

Every office has at least one: a giant bowl of bite-size candy bars, peppermints, chocolate Kisses and other high-sugar treats. It’s hard to resist its gravitational pull, especially when you’re suffering from a post-lunch blood-sugar dip in the late afternoon.

Some say the bowls of free sweets help lift office spirits. Problem is, they also hike the needle on the scale. Research confirms that office snacking is a measurable phenomenon. According to Sue Shellenbarger at the Wall Street Journal:

A four-week study of 40 secretaries found that when candy was visible in a clear, covered dish, participants ate 2.5 pieces of chocolate on top of the 3.1 candies they would have eaten had the chocolates been in an opaque container, according to the 2006 study in the International Journal of Obesity. Moving the dish closer, so the subjects could reach the candy while seated at their desks, added another 2.1 candies a day to their intake.

“The proximity and visibility of a food can consistently increase an adult’s consumption,” says the study, led by Brian Wansink, a professor of marketing and human behavior at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., and author of “Mindless Eating.” He adds, “Even for a person with the greatest resolve, every time they look at a candy dish they say, ‘Do I want that Hershey’s Kiss, or don’t I?’ At the 24th time, maybe I’m kind of hungry, and I just got this terrible email, and my boss is complaining — and gradually my resolve is worn down.”

And while a tiny morsel of chocolate might seem harmless, consider the cumulative effects of habitual snacking. Eating just two pieces of candy a day at work adds about 480 calories to your weekly total intake, the WSJ calculates — that’s a whopping 1,920 extra calories per month. So is it any wonder that you’ve gained 5 or 7 lbs. in the last year?

What can you do to keep yourself out of the candy bowl, and away from the pastries, cakes, doughnuts and other fattening foods in the break room? One strategy is always to have your own snacks on hand. If you’ve got fruit, nuts or sugar-free gum within easy reach, that doughnut will seem far less alluring. Or you can try to get the whole office to participate in a diet makeover: encourage coworkers to bring fresh fruit and salads to meetings and potlucks, instead of high-fat foods like brownies and mac-and-cheese.

Maybe someday, the workplace candy culture will go the way of the three-martini lunch and Mad Men-era office smoke breaks. But until then, you may have to take it upon yourself to watch your diet. As Shellenbarger reports, Melanie Meek, an employee of a Canton, Ohio, real-estate firm, has lost 80 lbs. since 2009, in part by asking her co-workers keep their unhealthy snacks out of sight. She told them: “If I have to smell it, I will move it.”

Every office has at least one: a giant bowl of bite-size candy bars, peppermints, chocolate Kisses and other high-sugar treats. It’s hard to resist its gravitational pull, especially when you’re suffering from a post-lunch blood-sugar dip in the late afternoon.

Some say the bowls of free sweets help lift office spirits. Problem is, they also hike the needle on the scale. Research confirms that office snacking is a measurable phenomenon. According to Sue Shellenbarger at the Wall Street Journal:

A four-week study of 40 secretaries found that when candy was visible in a clear, covered dish, participants ate 2.5 pieces of chocolate on top of the 3.1 candies they would have eaten had the chocolates been in an opaque container, according to the 2006 study in the International Journal of Obesity. Moving the dish closer, so the subjects could reach the candy while seated at their desks, added another 2.1 candies a day to their intake.

“The proximity and visibility of a food can consistently increase an adult’s consumption,” says the study, led by Brian Wansink, a professor of marketing and human behavior at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., and author of “Mindless Eating.” He adds, “Even for a person with the greatest resolve, every time they look at a candy dish they say, ‘Do I want that Hershey’s Kiss, or don’t I?’ At the 24th time, maybe I’m kind of hungry, and I just got this terrible email, and my boss is complaining — and gradually my resolve is worn down.”

And while a tiny morsel of chocolate might seem harmless, consider the cumulative effects of habitual snacking. Eating just two pieces of candy a day at work adds about 480 calories to your weekly total intake, the WSJ calculates — that’s a whopping 1,920 extra calories per month. So is it any wonder that you’ve gained 5 or 7 lbs. in the last year?

What can you do to keep yourself out of the candy bowl, and away from the pastries, cakes, doughnuts and other fattening foods in the break room? One strategy is always to have your own snacks on hand. If you’ve got fruit, nuts or sugar-free gum within easy reach, that doughnut will seem far less alluring. Or you can try to get the whole office to participate in a diet makeover: encourage coworkers to bring fresh fruit and salads to meetings and potlucks, instead of high-fat foods like brownies and mac-and-cheese.

Maybe someday, the workplace candy culture will go the way of the three-martini lunch and Mad Men-era office smoke breaks. But until then, you may have to take it upon yourself to watch your diet. As Shellenbarger reports, Melanie Meek, an employee of a Canton, Ohio, real-estate firm, has lost 80 lbs. since 2009, in part by asking her co-workers keep their unhealthy snacks out of sight. She told them: “If I have to smell it, I will move it.”

Olive oil, which has long been associated with a heart-healthy diet, has now also been linked with a lower risk of stroke.

Researchers surveyed 7,625 people age 65 or older in three French cities to determine their levels of olive oil consumption. Then, they examined the participants’ medical records for occurrence of stroke, over about five years of follow-up.

About 40% of participants said they were moderate users of olive oil (using it for cooking or in dressings or with bread) and 37% were heavy users (using it for all three purposes); 23% of participants said they never used olive oil.

(LIST: Tips for a Healthy, Cancer-Free BBQ)

Heavy consumers of olive oil were 41% less likely to have a stroke during the follow-up period than people who never used olive oil, researchers found. Further, the top third of heavy consumers were 73% less likely to have stroke than those in the bottom third of the group.

Overall, 148 strokes occurred in the study population. None of the participants had a history of stroke or heart attack prior to joining the study. The researchers found that the results were statistically significant for ischemic stroke (caused by the clogging of an artery to the brain), but not for hemorrhagic stroke (caused by the bursting of a blood vessel in the brain).

Olive oil, rich in cholesterol-lowering monounsaturated fats, is oft touted for its health benefits. But while the stroke-risk reduction found in the new study persisted even after researchers adjusted for other stroke risk factors like weight, diet, exercise and income, it’s important to note that such factors still play a powerful role in overall health.

For instance, olive oil is typically part of a larger Mediterranean-style diet, which includes many other healthful food sources. “Olive oil is usually added to other foods (i.e., fruits and vegetables, legumes, cereals and fish) and may contribute indirect benefits by increasing the palatability and consumption of foods that may have health-promoting potential,” the authors of the study, led by Cécilia Samieri of the Université Bordeaux, wrote in Neurology.

(MORE: The USDA Ditches the Food Pyramid for a Plate)

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Nikolaos Scarmeas of Columbia University Medical Center noted that the study was observational and that the association between olive oil and reduced stroke risk should be “claimed with confidence only if the observations … withstand the trial of randomized interventions.”

In the meantime, it can’t hurt to include more olive oil in your diet — especially if you use it instead of saturated fat sources like butter. The current study didn’t specify what types of olive oil were used, but it did note that French stores carry extra virgin olive oil almost exclusively.

Potatoes may be getting a bum rap, according to a small new study that finds that people who ate potatoes daily saw a drop in blood pressure after a month.

The key is that study participants ate potatoes cooked in the microwave, which preserves the tuber’s nutrients — unlike frying them into French fries or chips — the authors said. “Mention ‘potato’ and people think ‘fattening, high-carbs, empty calories,'” said lead researcher Joe Vinson in a statement. “In reality, when prepared without frying and served without butter, margarine or sour cream, one potato has only 110 calories and dozens of healthful phytochemicals and vitamins.”

MORE: High Blood Pressure? Monitor for 24 Hours to Be Sure

The research involved a tiny sample size — just 18 people. All were hypertensive, and 14 of the participants were already taking blood-pressure lowering medication and most were overweight or obese. Half the participants ate six to eight microwaved purple potatoes (each roughly the size of a golf ball), with the skins on, twice daily. The other half made no change to their daily diets. After a month, the two groups switched regimens.

Researchers found at the end of the study that potato eating was associated with reductions in systolic (the top number) and diastolic (the bottom number) blood pressure readings of 3.5% and 4.3%, respectively. People taking blood pressure medication also saw reductions. And eating potatoes didn’t result in weight gain or a rise in cholesterol level.

The researchers said that purple potatoes in particular have high amounts of antioxidants and other nutrients, especially in the skin.

Of course, the study was small and short-term and included hypertensive people with weight problems, so it’s difficult to extrapolate anything to a wider population. And the findings, which were presented at the National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS) this week, are not yet peer-reviewed and must be considered preliminary. It’s also worth noting that the study was funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

MORE: Blood Pressure Drug Could Fight Cocaine Addiction

Nevertheless, the report is a good reminder that even the most healthful foods can be turned into junk with the wrong preparation.

Meredith Melnick is a reporter at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @MeredithCM. You can also continue the discussion on TIME’s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

It’s Week 4 of boot camp, and I’m hooked.

That’s right; the ersatz anti-exerciser actually looks forward to her early morning workouts so much that she’s reupped for another month.

True, I haven’t lost much weight — 1 lb. after the first three weeks — and I don’t know if the final week was any kinder since I decided to heed readers’ advice and stop weighing myself. Body fat measurements can be a more accurate indication of progress than weight loss. So I measured my body fat composition by grasping a handheld device that apparently sent electrical pulses through me and reported the grim details back digitally: 27.2%. That sounded like a lot of blubber, but Nate, one of the guys who puts us boot-campers through our paces, said women average between 23% to 28% fat. Guess that means the baby weight I gained and never lost around my hips and belly is A-okay. Or not.

Under the assumption that my body is handily losing fat and gaining muscle, which weighs more and may account for my unimpressive weight loss, I’m motivated to keep going with what can feel, at moments, like a pretty punishing routine. On Tuesday, I did more than 100 push-ups, which I find astounding. Granted, they’re the “girlie” kind, done on my knees instead of my toes. But Miles, the other trainer, says it’s better to slightly alter an exercise and maintain good form rather than fail at standard push-ups.

MORE: Unhealthy Eating as Occupational Hazard?

And, the darned scale aside, I am feeling better. I have much more energy and don’t experience the same midday fade that I usually do. Exercising hard first thing in the morning gives me a sense of accomplishment. Even if I get nothing done for the rest of the day, at least I’ve made my daily contribution to healthy living.

Part of healthy living is healthy eating, of course. For the first three weeks of boot camp, I followed a no-carb diet designed to boost results. This week, I’ve more or less ditched the no-carb diet; not only was it extremely restrictive, but I wasn’t seeing the weight loss I’d anticipated. Yet it hasn’t been a complete wash. I’m now far more aware of the carb content in foods I eat, and I expect that will continue. Not that I won’t ever enjoy a steaming bowl of fettuccine or a crispy baguette, but I don’t think I’m going back to the days of cereal for breakfast, sandwich for lunch and pasta or rice for dinner. Basically, the diet has raised my carb consciousness. Because carbs are everywhere, they’re hard to avoid. But there are good carbs (whole grains) and not-so-good carbs (white bread). Is it my imagination that as I’ve slowly added carbs back in, I’ve felt more sluggish? I’ll be paying attention to that going forward.

MORE: Study: Cutting Carbs Two Days a Week Is Better than Full-Time Dieting

I’ve also learned that I have far more self-restraint than I realized. I’ve always thought of myself as having very little willpower, but I’ve found that’s not entirely true: for the first time ever, I turned down brownie and doughnut samples being passed around at a Starbucks. That was one for the record books.

Meanwhile, I feel like I have a leg up on the new year. My New Year’s resolution, to get in better shape, began at the beginning of December; I’m a month ahead of most people. Now all I have to do is carry on. When I started boot camp, the title of a new book, Working Out Sucks, and its amusing video clip resonated with me. Now I might beg to differ.

Bread and rolls are the No. 1 source of sodium in the American diet, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Salty snacks like chips and pretzels come in at No. 10.

The finding seems unlikely, since bread isn’t actually saltier than chips or many of the other foods on the list. But Americans tend to eat more bread and rolls, compared with other foods.

Overall, the report found, Americans are overconsuming sodium in a big way. The average American’s daily sodium intake was 3,266 mg a day, which far exceeds the government’s recommended daily limit of 2,300 mg. The limit is set lower, at 1,500 mg a day, for risk groups, including blacks, people over 51, and those with high blood pressure, diabetes or chronic kidney disease — that’s about half the U.S. population. Nearly 90% of all Americans eat too much salt, which increases their chances of developing hypertension, a risk factor for heart disease and stroke.

MORE: Study: The Best and Worst Foods for Healthy Weight

The study found that 10 foods account for 44% of of all the sodium we eat. Broken down, they are:

1. Bread and rolls, 7.4%
2. Cold cuts/cured meats, 5.1%
3. Pizza, 4.9%
4. Fresh and processed poultry, 4.5%
5. Soups, 4.3%
6. Sandwiches like cheeseburgers, 4%
7. Cheese, 3.8%
8. Pasta dishes like spaghetti with meat sauce, 3.3%
9. Meat dishes like meatloaf with tomato sauce, 3.2%
10. Snacks, including chips, pretzels, popcorn and puffs, 3.1%

For the most part, people are buying these foods premade at the store or eating them in restaurants: 75% of all the sodium we consume in a day comes from food we don’t prepare at home. In contrast, only about 5% to 6% of salt is added during cooking, and an equal amount is added from the shaker at the table. “These results suggest a comprehensive approach is needed that includes reductions in the sodium content in processed foods from stores, restaurants and other food service locations,” the authors of the study write.

It would also help for people to avoid processed, packaged foods, eat more fresh fruits and vegetables, and try to cook more at home. Another tip: eat less overall. The CDC also recommends studying the Nutrition Facts label on food before you buy it. A slice of white bread, for instance, can vary widely in sodium content from 80 mg to 230 mg. The sodium in one cup of canned chicken soup can range from 100 mg to 940 mg, depending on the brand. A cheeseburger from a fast-food joint can contain a whopping 1,690 mg of sodium by itself — never mind the fries and soda that typically come with it — which is nearly three-quarters of your daily max.

MORE: Are We Training Babies to Crave Salt?

The CDC report was based on food surveys conducted among 7,227 Americans, including more than 2,500 children and teens, in 2007-08. Participants were surveyed twice, about 3 to 10 days apart, and asked each time to recall what they had eaten in the previous 24 hours. The researchers then categorized the various foods and tallied their sodium content.

Most participants reported eating foods from one or more of the top 10 ranked food categories during at least one survey: about 80% had eaten bread or rolls in the previous 24 hours, 56% had eaten cheese, 51% salty snacks, and 48% had had poultry.

If we could reduce the sodium content in the top 10 foods by 25%, the report suggests the average American’s daily sodium intake could drop by 11%, or 360 mg. That in turn could avert up to 28,000 deaths and save $7 billion in health-care costs a year.

See the entire CDC report here, and a consumer-friendly summary here.

The stats on childhood obesity are sobering: 1 in 3 U.S. kids weighs too much. In the April issue of Vogue, we learn about one of them. Her name is Bea, and it’s pretty hard not to imagine her growing up to really, really hate her mother. 

Bea’s mom, Dara-Lynn Weiss, writes about publicly shaming her 7-year-old daughter in her quest for a slimmer, trimmer girl after the pediatrician advised her that Bea was clinically obese at 4 ft. 4 in. and 93 pounds.

The regimen Weiss chose hardly makes sense, to say nothing of the emotional impact on Bea of exploiting her eating habits in the fashion industry’s bible. Lynn Grefe, president of the National Eating Disorders Association, calls Weiss’ handling of Bea’s weight “a recipe for eating disorders.”

“She did everything we recommend people don’t do,” says Grefe. “To us, diet is a four-letter word.” What’s more, it’s pretty clear that Weiss is taking out her own obsessive-compulsiveness about food on her daughter:

Sometimes Bea’s after-school snack was a slice of pizza or a gyro from the snack vendor. Other days I forced her to choose a low-fat vegetable soup or a single hard-boiled egg. Occasionally I’d give in to her pleas for a square of coffee cake, mainly because I wanted to eat half of it. When she was given access to cupcakes at a party, I alternated between saying, “Let’s not eat that, it’s not good for you;” “Okay, fine, go ahead, but just one;” and “Bea, you have to stop eating crap like that, you’re getting too heavy,” depending on my mood. Then I’d secretly eat two when she wasn’t looking.

(MORE: Ads Featuring Overweight Children Make Some Experts Uncomfortable)

Another time, she denied her daughter a salad, prompting Fashionista blog to note this “may have not been the best way to set up the article if she wanted the reader to believe her to be a sane, reasonable person.”

Weiss wrote:

I stepped between my daughter and a bowl of salad nicoise my friend was handing her, raising my palm like a traffic cop. “Thanks,” I said, “but she already ate dinner.” 
“But she said she’s still hungry,” my friend replied, bewildered. 
I forced a smile. “Yeah, but it’s got a lot of dressing on it and we’re trying–”

“Just olive oil!” my friend interrupted. “It’s superhealthy!”
 My smile faded and my voice grew tense. “I know. She can’t.”
 My friend’s eyes moved to my daughter, whose gaze held the dish in the crosshairs: a Frisbee-size bowl bursting with oil, tuna, eggs, potatoes, olives.

In an era when a respected doctor suggested last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association that severely obese kids be put in foster care, the clean-your-plate club is now a relic of the past. Instead, pediatricians urge parents to pay attention to the kinds of foods they make for their kids — salad nicoise, packed with protein, sure seems like a good choice. Replace junk food in kitchen cupboards with fresh fruits and veggies. And encourage your kids to get 60 minutes of exercise a day; they’re more likely to stick with it if you join them.

(MORE: Childhood Obesity: Most U.S. Schools Don’t Require P.E. Class or Recess)

Experts steer clear of putting kids on a diet, which is why last summer’s book for children, Maggie Goes on a Diet, created such a ruckus. It’s about a teen who goes on a diet and suddenly leaves her insecure self behind to embrace her new image of school soccer star. The problem begins with the title, explained Cynthia Bulik, director of the Eating Disorders Program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in August.

“We don’t want kids to ‘go on diets,’ we don’t want kids to use diet language,” she says. “You have to think about how the messages will be interpreted by a child’s brain. They will not see any nuance — they will see a causal association between losing weight and becoming popular, pretty and athletic. It emphasizes valuing people for their size and appearance rather than for who they are.”

As bloggers continue to heap scorn upon Weiss, it’s worth remembering that this is just the latest of Vogue’s forays into hot-button issues that involve body image and children. Last summer, the mag’s French edition published some overtly sexy photos of 10-year-old Thylane Loubry Blondeau lying languidly on a tiger skin, decked out in leopard-print stilettos, glittering jewelry and a glamorous updo.

As for Weiss’ essay, don’t bother looking for it online; it’s not there. A Vogue spokesman told me they make only some of each month’s issue available on the Internet. Or perhaps, as Grefe suggested, the magazine had second thoughts about posting such a humiliating article for posterity.