nutritionwonderland

Author: nutrition

  • One Fat, Two Fat, Is Any Fat a Good Fat?

    One Fat, Two Fat, Is Any Fat a Good Fat?

    One of the most confusing things when it comes to proper nutrition is the role of fats. We’re constantly told that fats are evil things which will expand our bellies to the size of hot air balloons. This constant anti-fat attitude is behind many of the popular diet trends, which focus on cutting fats and carbs and replacing them with proteins. But not all fats are the same, and not all of them are bad for you. In fact, many fats are very good for you. Recent research has found that the low-fat diet trend is simply wrong for us– we’re not supposed to have no fat in our diets. you just have to know which is which.

    The Good

    The Good – CIS Unsaturated

    Because they’re called by their names more than their general category, you might not even know that the good fats are even fats at all.  The fats that are good, in general, are ones that are cis-unsaturated.  In chemistry, fats are carbon strings with hydrogens attached to them. “Unsaturated” means that the carbons are not bound to as many hydrogens as they can. So fats can be monounsaturated (only one hydrogen less than the possible maximum), polyunsaturated (2 or more less) or saturated. And of the unsaturated fats, there are two main forms: cis and trans. This has to do with how the carbons bond to each other where there is a hydrogen missing. In nature, they bond in what is called a ‘cis’ manner, which creates a bend in the molecule. When we artificially change monounsaturated fats into other fats, they instead form a ‘trans’ bond, which is almost straight.

    Our bodies are naturally very good at breaking down and utilizing the cis-unsaturated fats.  They fit better into the enzymes in our bodies which cut apart the carbons and chop up the molecules for use. That said, have you heard of cis-unsaturated fats? Probably not. They don’t appear on nutrition labels as a category, and are rarely referred to as such by the media.

    Olive Oil is loaded in monounsaturated fats

    What you might have heard of, though, are Omega Fatty Acids, Oleic Acid, Palmitoleic Acid and Linoleic Acid. These are all cis-unsaturated fats. The benefits of these kinds of fats are well explored by scientists. They contribute to lower cholesterol levels and reduced risk of heart disease. They’re connected with positive effects from intelligence to weight loss. In fact, eating them is better than cutting your fats period. Studies have shown that increased intake of these unsaturated fats, like in a Mediterranean diet which includes large amounts of olive oil (chock full of unsaturated fats), leads to all kinds of health benefits [1,2,3]. In general, they’re really, really good for you.

    The foods that are highest in unsaturated fats include:

    • avocados
    • nuts (like walnuts and pecans)
    • vegetable oils (like canola oil, olive oil and grapeseed oil)

    They’re found in animal products, too, but animals tend to have saturated fats as well as unsaturated ones. In general, the FDA recommends that no more than 30% of your overall calorie consumption comes from unsaturated fats, or 67 grams given a 2000 calorie diet.

    The Bad (but not sooo bad)

    Saturated fats are often touted as the bad guys. But they’re not quite as bad as they’re portrayed. These are seen as the main culprit behind high blood cholesterol and are known to raise bad LDL cholesterol levels. Unlike unsaturated fats, though, they don’t lower good HDL cholesterol levels.

    Extra Virigin Coconut Oil – a good saturated fat

    Don’t write them off as terrible for you just yet. Unlike trans fats, saturated fats occur naturally in high concentrations, particularly in animals. Some studies have found that a little saturated fats actually increases the benefits of some unsaturated fats when eaten together [4].  Still others have found that diets high in certain saturated fats from vegetables not animals, like unrefined, cold pressed coconut oil , might even be good for you [5,6].  Diets that are low-carb but high in protein and fat, for example, don’t automatically increase the risks of heart disease. Other studies have had mixed or even positive results from diets with saturated fats. One in 2007, for example, found that lower risk of heart disease was associated with increased fat intake so long as it wasn’t trans fat, including benefits from eating more saturated fat.

    The key, it seems, is moderation, not complete extermination of saturated fats from our diets. The USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services say that up to 10% of your daily calorie intake can come from these fats, which are found in meat, cheese, dairy products and tropical oils like palm and coconut oil.

    The Ugly

    A Trans Fat – notice how straight it is

    The worst fats for you, by a landslide, are the trans fats. While other dietary fats have redeeming qualities, trans fats seem to have none. They’re almost entirely man-made, created by adding hydrogens to other fats. This process, called hydrogenation, turns oils into the semi-solid margarine and other products that are associated with trans fats. These trans fats are useful because they have a longer shelf life, are hard enough to stay solid at room temperature, and yet can even be malleable cold. Unfortunately, there’s a cost for their benefits.

    Trans fats, in general, are bad for you. They raise your risk of diabetes and heart failure, particularly by raising “bad cholesterol” levels in the body. But they don’t stop there. They not only raise LDL (bad cholesterol) levels, they lower HDL cholesterol levels – the good ones. In 2006, a scientific review of fats from the New England Journal of Medicine stated clearly that “from a nutritional standpoint, the consumption of trans fatty acids results in considerable potential harm but no apparent benefit.”

    For many years, margerine like Country Crock was loaded with trans fat. They have reduced the amount greatly but it is still in there.

    The damning evidence against trans fats comes from a study of 120,000 female nurses from 1976 to 1990. The Nurses’ Health Study found that the risk of coronary heart disease nearly doubled for every 2% increase in trans fat calories consumed instead of carbohydrates. Considering the same increase in risk takes a 15% increase in saturated fats and that eating the other unsaturated fats actually lowers heart disease risks, there seems to be no reason to eat trans fat at all. And if that weren’t bad enough, trans fats have also been linked to liver problems and even infertility.

    Trans fats are the ones found in fried foods, commercial baked goods, shortening and margarine. Based on the source list, it’s not surprising it’s not healthy. The American Heart Association says that no more than 1% of your total daily calories should come from trans fats to maintain a healthy heart, and, in general, any increase in trans fats increases your risk of coronary heart disease and stroke.

    How To Get The Good Without Too Much Bad Or Ugly

    Now that you know what to look for, you can make more informed choices about your meals when you hit the grocery store. Read the nutrition labels carefully. For example, “no trans fat” can still contain up to 6% trans fat according to US guidelines, and ‘high’ or ‘low’ fat aren’t as important as the kind of fat. Just because something contains 10 g of fat doesn’t mean it’s awful for you – check and see if the fat is saturated or unsaturated.

    The best way to keep your diet healthy is to do little things to replace your trans or saturated fats with cis-unsaturated ones. For example:

    • cook with olive oil or sunflower oil instead of butter or margarine
    • eat fish, which is high in Omega Fatty Acids but low in other kinds of fats
    • grilling instead of frying your meat
    • removing the skin from your chicken breast can reduce saturated fat levels by 30%-50%

    Doing these type of things will decrease your risks of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and a bunch of other diseases.

    Before I get my head chopped off in the comments for saying fats are healthy, don’t get me wrong – most Americans already eat way more fat than we should, of any kind. So it’s not necessarily a bad thing to cut down your fat intake if you’re looking to make your diet a bit more nutritious. But if you already eat somewhat healthy, are at a normal weight and are just looking to improve yourself, cutting the fat out of your diet entirely isn’t the way to go. Ideally, even if you’re trying to lose weight and eat healthier from a less-than-healthy starting point, you shouldn’t see all fats as the enemy. My point is that fats really are good for you, in the right amounts.

  • Food Safety – The Recent History

    Food Safety – The Recent History

    he early part of 2009 has witnessed one of the largest food contamination cases in US history.  The Peanut Corporation of America had a salmonella outbreak in one of their factories, contaminating the majority of peanut-butter containing products in the United States.  Unfortunately, this outbreak is not an isolated incident across the industry.

    E.coli O157:H7, Listeria, Staph and Campylocbacter cause millions of bacterial infections every year.  The prevalence of these pathogens relates directly to how food arrives into your home today – a process that has radically changed over the last 20 years.   Here, we review the recent history of food borne illnesses and how they relate to the consolidation of the food industry.

    Food Borne Illness

    Contaminated foods are far more common than you probably think.  Estimates suggest as many as 1 in 4 Americans, about 75 million people, suffer from food borne illness once every year while another 350,000 less fortunate people are hospitalized and 5,000 die.  People typically associate food contamination with meat – and for good reason.  The frantic hand-washing after handling most meat products strikes some as reactionary but it makes more sense when you see the numbers.

    Chicken Contamination in 2007

    Consumer Reports ran a large study, testing 525 raw chickens in early 2007 and found a stunning 83% of all chickens were infected with salmonella or campylobacter bacteria.  Even more alarming, the majority of both bacteria’s tested were resistant to one or more antibiotics – largely resulting from the factory farm practice of giving their birds a constant, low level of antibiotics to retard hunger. [1]

    All this is made worse by the dramatic consolidation of poultry slaughterhouses in the last 20 years, pushing ever greater numbers of chickens into tight spaces – the ideal environment for disease.  We could spend all day making the connection between factory farming and pathogens in food but that’s for another article.  The problem of food contamination goes way beyond meat products – they are only part of this story.  Before, we really get going, here is a primer video with the food safety czar Dr. Marion Nestle:

    The most recent fiasco with peanut butter better explains many of the other issues involved.

    Peanut Butter Under the Microscope

    The speed with which the peanut butter fiasco unfolded speaks volumes as to what we are up against with the way our food system is put together and ensuring its safety.  On January 16th 2009, Kellogg’s recalled some of their Austin brand peanut butter sandwich crackers at the request of the government.  Within a week, 130 more products from all sorts of manufacturers had been recalled.  By the end of the month, 19,000 people in 43 states had been sickened and 8 had died from complications.

    No bacteria in the shell

    With a little investigation, the FDA and CDC found the entire outbreak could be traced to one plant in Georgia owned by the Peanut Corporation of America.  It may be hard to imagine that one single plant could contaminate a good majority of the entire nation’s supply of peanut butter in under a month but that seems to be what happened here.

    To better understand how this could happen, the Times ran a great piece last month that starts to scratch the surface into the realities of the modern food system.  This is an excerpt from that piece that talks about inspections briefly but you will get the idea (emphasis mine):

    “Plant employees said they typically had advance knowledge of state inspections and that last month, when they were tipped off that federal investigators were coming, the employees were told not to answer questions. Where the state had found no major problems, the federal team found many, like the leaky roof, and swab tests showed salmonella living on the plant floors. Plant managers had not decontaminated the peanut butter processing line after detecting salmonella, the federal report shows.

    In examining Peanut Corporation of America’s records, federal investigators discovered that company tests had found salmonella 12 times since 2007. The inspectors said they got the records by invoking a bioterrorism law.”

    Conflicting standards, a lack of funds, lax oversight and carelessness were all apart of this salmonella epidemic.  The Peanut Corporation of America may be the poster child for all of this but similar practices surely go on elsewhere due to the exact same circumstances that created this situation.   The reality is that it is very hard for any of us – including the safety regulators in charge of this operation – to know where the next firestorm will erupt.   Looking back shows us an almost identical set of circumstances that led to the last major outbreak prior to peanut butter – spinach.

    Spinach Is Food Safety in a Nutshell

    The e.coli O157:H7 outbreak in pre-washed spinach back in late 2006 was the last poster child for food safety reform.  The incident was widely covered in the media, excellent news pieces were authored about the problems – especially the eerily prophetic article published in the Washington Post, whose last line concluded “Unless something changes, we will have another outbreak.”

     

    Extent of Spinach Outbreak, CDC

    Tainted spinach fully captured the national spotlight when the CDC first made public the problem.  From their first bulletin (emphasis mine):

    “Public health officials in multiple states, with the assistance of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are investigating a large outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 infections. Thus far, 50 cases…have been reported from CT (1), ID (3), IN (4), MI (3), OR (5), NM (2), UT (11), WI (20).  Eight patients developed the hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) and one patient died.  Most cases are recent: for those with known illness onset, the range of onset is 08/25/2006 to 09/03/2006.  The outbreak is likely ongoing.”

    What’s important to note here is that by the time the first bulletin was issued, we were already dealing with contamination from coast to coast.  Essentially, the problem was nationwide before anyone even started to do anything about it.

    A quick response by government agencies mitigated the damage but still almost 200 people feel ill and 3 died as a result of the outbreak according to the CDC.  Follow up reports on the incident get us even closer to understanding just how intertwined our food system is now.

    The CDC worked with local California officials and conducted their own investigation into the exact source of the contamination.  Their findings suggested a nearby cattle farm who leased part of their land out to a spinach farm had runoff that was contaminated with the same genetic strain of e.coli that sickened large parts of the country.  Also suggested was that maybe a single wild pig may have run through the cattle manure and then the spinach.

    Reused water likely spread e.coli across America

    How could a single pig contaminate the entire nation’s spinach crop?  Surprisingly, it was quite easy.  Prepared spinach is ‘washed’ in water that gets reused over and over and over again.  It is assumed that the equipment and water are sterile but if one pathogen gets in, it easily spreads through the entire system.  After the spinach was bagged and trucked away, you can easily see how just one little pig sickened 200 people from coast to coast.

    Understanding the Centralized Food System

    Food safety issues are more important now because the concentration of food production in the United States has increased substantially over the past 20 years.  The USDA published an insightful look at the US food production landscape back in May 2007 – and its results highlight just how concentrated most food related activities are today.

    The report mostly focused on consolidation in food retailers – like the move from traditional supermarkets into warehousers like Sam’s Club – but it also found that food production and distribution  consolidated at a remarkable clip.

    How food production has concentrated, USDA

    Just in the period from 1997-2002, nearly every major food industry saw its four largest firms grow far larger.  Cookie makers, water distributors, seafood purveyors and milk producers saw their rates of consolidation climb anywhere from 10-100%.  Additional consolidation was seen in both the cattle and hog industries mentioned further down in the report.   In short, agribusiness is slowly becoming the de facto method of food production – and that means new controls are urgently needed.

    Tying the Pieces Together

    With dramatic uptakes in food industry consolidation, more and more of our food is coming from fewer and fewer places.  As we saw with both the peanut butter and spinach incidents, just one plant or one field can now contaminate the entire country in mere days.  Consequently, food safety becomes a bigger issue because there is a greater likelihood for contamination at every step.  Higher density farms, big processing plants and warehouse food retailers put massive amounts of ingredients together in ways whose ramifications we are only beginning to comprehend.

    While smaller food brands, organics and farmer’s markets have grown at a strong clip, they are nowhere near offsetting the dramatic consolidation going on inside the agribusiness industry.  Stronger food safety measures, like the agreement the California Leafy Green growers instituted after the spinach ordeal, need to be put into place everywhere.  It should not take outbreaks in each food group for proper food safety measures to become the norm, but, without an overarching national food safety framework, massive liability has been the only successful tool in motivating agribusiness to secure the food supply.  Here’s hoping things are a bit different this time around.

    NOTE: This article is the 1st part of a series about Food Safety in the United States. You may want to read the first part to better understand this article:

    Part 1: Book Review: Safe Food by Marion Nestle

  • Patti’s Food Substitution List

    Patti’s Food Substitution List

    Eating better isn’t easy. Most of the choices you have to make about food come at you quickly, when you are often far from the information you need. And how many people even know what tef is?

    We have decided to put together a handy list of which foods make the best, healthy substitutes for the unhealthy foods you are already eating.

    This should help quiet that persistent argument that eating healthy means giving up the foods you love. On the contrary, almost every food on the unhealthy side of this list has a very similar, if not identical cousin on the healthy side.

    Eating well is more about knowledge than limitations. We hope this helps you open the door.

    Note: Both charts can be re-categorized by clicking on the column headings

    Patti’s Food Substitution Chart
    Traditional Food Healthier Alternative(s)
    Vinegar (white) Raw + Organic Apple Cider Vinegar, Rice Vinegar, Plum (umeboshi) Vinegar
    Milk (Cows, Pasteurized) Almond Milk, Rice Milk/Organic Soy Milk, Raw Organic Cow’s Milk
    Butter, Traditional Spectrum Spread, Flax seed Spread, Raw, Organic Butter, Clarified Butter (Ghee)
    Cheese (Cow’s Milk) Goat Cheese, Feta Cheese, Rice Cheese, Raw Milk Cow Cheese
    White Bread Sprouted Multi-grain Bread, Sprouted Whole Wheat, Rye Bread + Linseed – real!, Whole Spelt Flour Breads
    Saltines, Refined Wheat Crackers Brown Rice Crackers
    Beef/Lamb – Factory Farm Pasture-Raised + Grass-Fed Beef, Pasture-Raised + Grass-Fed Lamb, Seitan-meat substitute, Fermented Soy (Tempeh)
    Chicken – Factory Farm Pasture-Raised Chickens, Cage-Free Chickens
    Eggs – Factory Farm Pasture-Raised Eggs, Cage-Free Eggs, Omega-3 Enhanced Eggs, Tofu Scramblers
    Pancakes, Refined Grain Whole Buckwheat Pancakes, Multi-grain Pancakes
    Waffles, Refined Grain + HFCS Buckwheat, Gluten Free Waffles
    White Sugar Brown Turbinado Sugar, Stevia, Rice Syrup Crystals
    Syrups, ‘Maple’ + HFCS Agave Syrup, Maple Syrup
    Honey Raw + Unfiltered Honey, Agave Syrup, Local Honey
    Orzo – Rice Shaped Pasta + Couscous Quinoa
    Refined Grain Pastas Whole Wheat Pasta, Brown Rice, Quinoa, Amaranth, Tef, Buckwheat (soba) Noodles
    White, Wheat Flour Whole Spelt Flour, Whole Buckwheat Flour, Brown Rice Flour
    White Rice Brown Rice, Red Rice, Wild Rice
    Potato Chips Sweet Potato Chips, Taro Chips
    Corn (GMO) Chips Blue Corn Chips, Rice Chips
    Peanut Butter Almond Butter, Cashew Butter, Sesame Butter, Organic Peanut Butter
    Roasted Peanuts Raw Almonds, Pecans, Macadamias, Cashews (dry roasted)
    Salted Sunflower Seeds Raw Pumpkin Seeds
    Pizza Brown Rice Flour Pizza with Rice Cheese, Whole Wheat Pizza with Buffalo Cheese
    Salt, Iodized Celtic Sea Salt (Gray), Himalayan (Pink), Salt Lake Salts (Red)
    Jellies – w/ HFCS Fruit Juice Sweetened Preserves
    Vegetable/Cooking Canola Oil Extra Virgin Coconut Oil (High Flash Point)
    Salad Dressing Soy Oil Extra Virgin Olive Oil, Flax Oil, Avacado Oil
    Soup Bouillon Organic Chicken Broth, Free-Range Broth, Vegan Vegetable Buillon
    Dark Soft Drinks/Sodas Fruit Juice sweetened Spritzers
    Citrus Sodas Club Soda + Lemon/Lime and Stevia
    Coffee Whole Leaf Teas (Danelion Root in Spring, Chicory, Green, Black), Tecchino Coffee Substitute, Mushroom Coffee
    Candy + Milk Chocolate Dark Chocolate (+60% cocoa)

    Revisions

    Version 1.0 of this chart was released on 2009-03-16. All revisions will be noted here.

  • Recipe: Low Fat Curried Grilled Chicken Salad

    Recipe: Low Fat Curried Grilled Chicken Salad

    Chicken Salad Sandwich, thanks to Flickr User Rick

    • 4 cups grilled boneless/skinless chicken, finely diced (pasture-raised if possible)
    • 1 celery stalk, finely diced
    • ¼ cup red onion, finely diced
    • ¼ cup English cucumber (seedless), finely diced
    • 1/8 cup California raisins (organic)
    • 2 tablespoons chopped cilantro or flat leaf parsley
    • 2 cups regular plain yogurt (raw if possible)
    • 2 teaspoons freshly squeezed and strained lemon juice
    • 1 teaspoon madras (yellow) curry powder
    • 2 teaspoons kosher salt
    • Freshly ground black pepper, to taste

    Preheat a small pan to medium heat then place the curry powder inside, dry (no fat, no water).  Stir the powder around in the pan to toast the spices.  Your goal is to brown the powder slightly but evenly and to release the fragrances.  It will be obvious when this happens.  Remove from heat and set to the side.

    In a mixing bowl, combine the yogurt, lemon juice, and toasted curry.  Using a whisk, whip the mixture until together and yogurt is yellow from the curry .  Now combine the rest of the ingredients and using a spatula fold the blend together.  At this point, you should adjust seasonings to your liking as well as add more yogurt for consistency, if desired.  Enjoy with pita bread, fresh green leaf lettuce, and tomato slices.

  • There Is Something Fishy About Intelligence

    There Is Something Fishy About Intelligence

    I often hear people say that Asians are smarter.  Many would say that any differences in intelligence (or at least performances on tests) are due to their consistent cultural focus on learning and perfection. However, there might just be another reason they do better on math and science tests: they eat a lot of sushi (a fact of which I am very jealous).

    You’ve probably heard people say that fish is better for you than any of the red meats.  Fish are chocked full of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids, and are considered to be highly nutritious by the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the US Department of Agriculture (in a roundabout way) – which include fish in their recommendations for healthy eating.

    The Real Food Pyramid, Harvard School of Public Health

    But above and beyond their normal health benefits, researchers have found another reason to eat seafood – it might just boost your intellect.  At least that’s the claim of some fresh-caught research from Sweden, which found that a fish-laden diet improved the cognitive performance of teenage boys even when a whole slew of other variables were taken into account.  They suggest that something in fish has a strong, positive impact on intelligence – which might just explain why fish-heavy cultures like those in Asia and the Mediterranean seem to do so much better on IQ tests.

    The Research

    Researchers in Sweden studied how diet affected intelligence scores of teenage boys. They followed the dietary intake of fish in boys from age 15 until age 18, when they take their Swedish Military Conscription mental tests. The boys who ate fish at least once a week scored at least 7% higher than those that didn’t.  Eating fish more than twice a week boosted them up almost 12%.

    Surstromming, A Popular Swedish Dish (Flickr: Wrote)

    The researchers didn’t just look at fish consumption. They compared a wide range of variables, including ethnicity, location, educational level, well being, and exercise and weight. But even with taking all these variables into account, it was clear that fish consumption had a significant positive association with improved cognitive performance. Regardless of their backgrounds or influences, simply eating fish made them perform better.

    Watch this BBC Science short about another experiment relating to Omega-3 consumption and childhood intelligence performed in England – the results speak for themselves, literally. They won’t let us embed the movie unfortunately – just click on the picture below to view it:

    BBC Science: Does Omega-3 Help Children Learn?

    What’s so great about fish?

    The biggest benefit of fish is that they are a rich source of Omega-3 Fatty Acids, which are also common in tofu, nuts and soybean products.  Our diets generally lack Omega-3s.  Research has found that these unsaturated fats have positive effects on everything from heart rhythm to immune function. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration actually approved of a qualified health claim for dietary supplements of omega-3 fatty acids relating them to a reduced risk of heart disease – a stamp of approval not given to most supplements.  Continuing research suggests Omega-3s positively impact arthritis, asthma, lupus, kidney disease, cancer, and even depression.

    Not only does fish have Omega-3s, it’s generally high in protein and low in fat.  A 3-ounce cooked serving of most fish and shellfish provides about 20 grams of protein, or about a third of the average daily recommended protein intake.  And not all protein is created equal – fish protein is top notch, containing an abundance of essential amino acids.  Seafood is a great alternative to beef, poultry and pork as a protein source because it tends to be lower in fat and is loaded with the essential meat minerals like iron, zinc and calcium. You can spare yourself even more bad fats and up the good ones by getting your filet grilled with lemon juice and olive oil.

    Get Your Diet Swimming

    Adding fish and seafood is an easy way to boost your health and your mental performance.  Instead of having the steak, try the grilled salmon instead.  Ideally, you should eat seafood twice a week or more as a source of protein. Think tuna sandwiches for lunch or a catfish filet for dinner.  The best benefits come from fresh fish, so get to know your local seafood markets.  Buying from fishermen supports the local economy and gets you the best prices on top-of-the-barrel health food.  And if you don’t live near the water, don’t panic – there are lots of great, frozen seafoods to choose from.

    Wild salmon, yum

    If you’re worried about sustainable seafood or environmental impacts, print out your regional Sustainable Seafood Guide from the Monterey Bay Aquarium. The yearly guides stay up to date on which fisheries are doing it right and which are destroying their stocks, so you can eat healthy and feel good about it. And, if you’re worried about quality, avoid the fish on the higher end of the food chain. Being on top might make them excellent to eat, but it also makes them more likely to contain environmental toxins like mercury picked up from eating other fish. A nice lowly catfish is environmentally sustainable and less likely to contain high concentrations of toxins.

    If you just can’t stand the taste of fish, consider adding an Omega-3 supplement to your diet. While it’s not as good as the ‘reel’ deal, it’s at least a start.  But don’t give up on fish too quickly – there are a lot of varieties out there, and taste ranges.  There are lighter tastes like catfish and tilapia which might appeal to those who find salmon too fishy.  At least try a few different fish before you give up on liking ocean dwellers.  Supplements are rarely, if ever, a good substitute for simply eating healthy foods.  If you truly can’t stomach fish, try tofu or soy-rich products that also contain high levels of Omega-3s.

    And for those of you like me who love seafood, research like this is just another excuse to go out and celebrate with a nice fillet.  Not only are you eating healthy, you might just be getting smarter for it.

    Source:
    Åberg, M., Åberg, N., Brisman, J., Sundberg, R., Winkvist, A., & Torén, K. (2009). Fish intake of Swedish male adolescents is a predictor of cognitive performance Acta Paediatrica, 98 (3), 555-560 DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.01103.x

  • Meet Tony the Chef

    Meet Tony the Chef

    Nutrition Wonderland would like to introduce you to a new column we will be featuring from time to time on the website called, Tony the Chef.  A long time friend, Tony will be sharing his thoughts to help you understand what the world of food looks like from the inside of a busy commercial kitchen.  The column will feature insights into the considerations chef must make to his customers – and to his bosses, what kind of factor money has on the ingredients he uses, the interplay of corporations and food politics  and, most importantly, his famous recipes.  Below, the Chef says hello – maybe you should say hello back.

    Tony the Chef

    My love for food has always been around.  As a child, I logged many hours in the kitchen with my mother.  It was often that playtime was forfeited to inquire what she was whipping up for supper.  Of course, after a while, I picked up a few things and later on in my teen years, I got a chance to flex my culinary muscle.  As dear mom was moved to the night shift at her place of employment, I took over the responsibilities of creating an evening meal for my father and me.  Most of the time, I would just try to recreate or improve upon my mother’s recipes.  Occasionally, I felt brave enough to experiment with my own and this was such a delight!  There were disasters, sure; however, that’s what cooking and life, really, are all about.  You will not know success without a few failures here and there.  So, I continued to cook throughout high school and then I graduated.   Now what?

    I was accepted to the University of Texas in Austin.  I had no idea what I wanted to accomplish there.  All I knew is that all of my best friends were going to UT and attending a University was something my parents wanted for me.  I went and I tried to find something I could “deal” with for the rest of my life.  The idea of being stationary at a desk for a long period of time was a little frightening for me.  I found nothing and to everyone’s surprise I dropped out of U.T. – with all its glory – and enrolled in classes at the Texas Culinary Academy (a Le Cordon Bleu program) just up the road in Austin.  You see, food, cooking and being a chef, was what I wanted to do all along.  It was a decision that I have not regretted since.

    Life in Colorado, Not Bad

    I completed culinary school with flying colors and landed my first cooking job at the Sheraton Resort in Steamboat Springs, CO as part of my school’s externship program.  The program only lasted three months but I decided to stay and work for three years.  In that time, I worked hard and was promoted quickly from an entry-level cook all the way to Sous Chef.  I had certainly found my niche.  During this time, it was an eccentric, but respected, old friend that turned me on to food awareness and what happens to my food before it hits the plate.  The information that I’ve learned from this gentlemen really opened my eyes so much that I have changed my lifestyle and I have joined his side to help deliver the message to unsuspecting consumers so that we can get food back to how nature intended – real.

    My love for Colorado was superseded by true love for a woman so I came back to Texas to be with her.  Blissfully, the current chapter of my live takes us to Dallas.  I am the Chef de Cuisine for the Westin City Center Dallas in downtown.  I oversee the restaurant there, 650 North.  Since speaking with the gentleman above in Colorado, I have seen a few unrelated changes; people are becoming aware of what they are eating.  Vendors are eliminating harmful products in their food and corporations are starting to offer their customers more of a choice.  Me, I push to offer only the best ingredients and I like the direction in which food is going.  Still, the actions are on a very small scale and there is much to be done.

    I love being a chef.  I feel a real connection between my purpose in life and food.  I like how it has the power to appeal to so many people, and I enjoy preparing it so that it is appealing to them.  Food most certainly sustains life.  It should not take life away.  Please take the time to view this site and revisit often.

    Thanks,
    Chef T.

  • Integrative Medicine on Capitol Hill

    Integrative Medicine on Capitol Hill

    On Thursday, the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a hearing called, Integrative Care: A Pathway to a Healthier Nation to assess how complementary medicine will be incorporated into President Obama’s challenge for Congress to pass health care reform in 2009. Barbara Milkulski (D), Maryland and Tom Harkin (D), Iowa chaired the committee that invited a distinguished panel of famous complementary practitioners to report their findings from field work.

    The proceedings can be see in their entirety here:

    Dr. Mehmet C. Oz, Director, Cardiovascular Institute and Complementary Medicine Program, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY was the first speaker (minutes 27-33). His speech to the committee was based upon the idea of movements where Oz advocated having patients become their own advocates in the health care system. His proposal included four points:

    • 1. Create a Smart Patient Movement, where people learn how to take of themselves before needing medical intervention
    • 2. Massively upgrade the information systems surrounding health care to be upgraded to systems like Microsoft HealthVault and Google Health – where patients store their medical records for all types of health professionals to see.
    • 3. Establish a ‘culture of wellness’ – defined as giving patients a more total platter of options in how they want to be healed. Physicians would be joined by ‘Health Coaches’ – people like physical therapists, social workers and acupuncturists – who help people become healthier before they need reactionary, Western medicine.
    • 4. Expand his ‘Health Corps Movement’ – a program is based upon the concepts of Peace Corps, whereby passionate young adults tutor their peers, in schools, on becoming more healthy.

    Following Dr. Oz was Dr. Mark Hyman, Founder and Medical Director of The UltraWellness Center in Lenox, MA – (watch minutes 68-74 in the video).

    Dr. Hyman

    Hyman’s major point was an affront to most of the medical community – that the entire system and approach to modern disease is completely wrong. Because most of the health crises in American revolve around chronic diseases, the reactionary, allopathic model of medicine is outdated. He wants a system that proactively addresses the debilitating symptoms of chronic disease before they ever form. From his speech [emphasis mine]:

    “We must address the underlying causes of illness and chronic disease. If we, give the wrong type of care, we will simply be doing the wrong thing – better. [We need to change not] only the way we do medicine but the medicine we do. This new paradigm of functional medicine is a system of personalized, patient-centered care based on how our environment and lifestyle choices impact on our genes to create imbalances in our genes and biologic systems….It is the best solution to our health care system.”

    Continuing with Dr. Oz’s point, Dr. Hyman hammered on the point of the need for health coaches to assist doctors in creating a healthy environment. He outlined three major initiatives he wanted to see in Obama’s upcoming health reform act:

    • 1. A radical shift in public investment towards training and research facilities that proactively address the needs of chronic disease, with the US creating a federal training center.
    • 2. Expand already existing and proven functional medicine projects, compromised of doctors and other health professionals, that demonstrate a new model of care.
    • 3. Create a White House cabinet position that coordinates all of these functions.

    Next up was Dr. Dean Ornish, Founder and President, Preventive Medicine Research Institute, Sausalito, CA (minutes 78-82) who mainly reinforced the points made by earlier speakers, adding that the systems he has implemented show impressive cost reductions. He stated that 75-80% of all medical costs are now related to chronic diseases – heart disease, obesity, diabetes – and that he was able to eliminate almost 95% of those costs with functional medicine approaches.

    Dr. Weil

    Finally, Dr. Andy Weil, Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine, University of Arizona, Vail, AZ (minutes 82 – 92) turned his focus onto why medical costs are so high in America. He made the point that our high tech medical system costs so much that there is no possible way to treat the numbers of sick people present without a different approach. He advocated low, very low tech medicine – simple breathing techniques and laughing – as examples of therapies he uses on a regular basis. He was adamant on changing the culture around alternative therapies with proper education.

    Thoughts…

    The Q&A afterwords between the doctors and senators involved the nagging question of how to make these changes happen. It was distressing to see just how little of an idea this important regulatory body had in terms of what they should be doing to improve health. Consistently, throughout this hearing, you would see the panel of health professionals imploring the senators to use the doctors’ collective talents.

    But it strikes us as so odd that – as these doctors talked with the exact group responsible for implementing these policies – yet none of the senators take notes or have drafts of the necessary legislation on hand to amend with new ideas. All of this genius is sitting before them, unloading mountains of brilliant – and often proven – ideas as these legislators just sit and watch when it is they who have the responsibility to act on this information.

    Hello? Is anybody home? Oh…you are busy with lobbyists. Sorry to interrupt.

    Each one of these CAM advocates made the case for prevention and better information preventing diseases before they happen, and they did it eloquently. Each outlined a path to this new world of health care, demonstrating the numbers and how this should be the way forward. They made concrete recommendations – a White House level voice for wellness, re-educating health professionals at medical schools, implementing health coaches and expanding the Health Corps – that could have immediate effects. Dr. Hyman’s presentation was one of the best speeches on the subject we have ever heard.

    Seeing as this conference was focused on helping craft the complementary medicine portion of health care reform, it is regrettable, if not inexcusable, that these senators – on the health subcommittee no less – could not even start to show how they will implement the wisdom bestowed upon them at this hearing. The time for discussing these issues has long passed and action is urgently needed. Functional medicine is used by millions every day but the American system of medicine discourages its use at every turn. It is our hope a few of the people on the government’s side watching this presentation could synthesize just 1% of what was being said to them and craft it into meaningful policy.

    Read each presenter’s official submitted statements to the committee:

  • Truvia and PureVia: The Controversy of Stevia

    In our final view of Truvia and PureVia, we take a look at the political history of stevia – the base of rebiana, opinions of some of the major players in this debate and offer our final views on the subject.

    NOTE: This article is the 3rd part of a series about Truvia and PureVia. You may want to read the first two parts to better understand this article:

    Part 1: Truvia and PureVia – A Window to the Past or the Future?
    Part 2: Truvia and PureVia – The Science

    A History Spent in the Shadows

    Stevia, before processing

    The plant stevia provides the rebiana sweetener found in both Truvia and PureVia.  Originally, stevia was used, in its whole leaf form, as a prized sweetener of the indigenous Guarani people throughout Paraguay in South America.  It did not find fame in the modern, western food supply until Japan began cultivating and using it in diet soft drinks (including Diet Coke) during the 1970s, a process that continues today.  Building on that success, stevia began to be sold throughout the world, including the United States, during the 1980s.  Its path from here has since become mired in controversy.

    Stevia was officially banned from sale in the US as a sweetener in 1991, driven from the market after an anonymous safety petition led the FDA to conclude that it was an unsafe food additive.  The FDA has declined to release the petitioner’s affiliation, although it is suspected to be someone with links to aspartame – a popular artificial sweetener that had just come to market in the 1990s.

    Because of the 1991 decision, an ‘Import Alert‘ was then issued by the FDA maintaining that information regarding stevia leaves – the same source of Truvia and PureVia – was [emphasis mine]:

    “…inadequate to demonstrate its safety as a food additive or to affirm its status as GRAS” (GRAS = Generally Recognized as Safe, FDA speak for labeling that recognizes a product’s safety).

    This position is at odds with just about every other natural food in existence.  Because the FDA has no mandate to test real foods, it makes little sense why this decision was made.  Any food ‘in common use’ before 1958 was automatically grandfathered into being deemed GRAS, and so – with stevia’s history of being safely used as a sweetener in South America for centuries – it clearly qualified.

    We contacted the FDA but they declined to comment on this position.

    A Change in Position

    Japan’s Truvia

    Stevia was completely banned from the United States until 1994, when the the Congress passed legislation that allowed stevia to be used solely as, ‘an herbal supplement’.   Interestingly though, the sweetener was still banned from being sold as a sweetener.  This contradictory stance established in 1994 – where stevia remained banned from sale as a sweetener but remained for sale as a supplement – continues clear into today.

    The closest we can get to a followup opinion from the FDA on the matter doesn’t come for another 8 years.  From the FDA’s now discontinued magazine named, appropriately enough, “FDA Consumer Magazine“, this was the only other mention of stevia on the FDA’s website for almost 15 years [emphasis mine]:

    Another product, stevia, is derived from a South American shrub. Though it can impart a sweet taste to foods, it cannot be sold as a sweetener because FDA considers it an unapproved food additive. “The safety of stevia has been questioned by published studies,” says Martha Peiperl, a consumer safety officer in FDA’s Office of Premarket Approval. “And no one has ever provided FDA with adequate evidence that the substance [stevia] is safe.” Under provisions of 1994 legislation, however, stevia can be sold as a “dietary supplement,” though it cannot be promoted as a sweetener.

    Ms. Peiperl of the FDA is referring to the idea that one of the two sweeteners in stevia called steviocide, might cause mutations in the DNA of people who eat it regularly.  As we reported in our scientific review of rebiana, the studies that suggested stevia was mutagenic were widely dismissed because the amount of stevia required to cause the defect was so far in excess of what anyone could ever possibly consume.

    They say OK to stevia

    Stranger still, after a large review of scientific literature, the World Health Organization declared in 2006 that stevia is completely safe and even potentially beneficial for people with hypertension (WHO).  That opinion was further codified at the 69th annual JEFCA (Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives) conference (.pdf link), where stevia was recognized as being non-mutagenic.

    Clearly, quite a few scientists could have “provided FDA with adequate evidence that the substance [stevia] is safe” in Ms. Peiperl’s words.  The only problem was that the FDA never asked to reevaluate stevia, for what are likely political reasons from what we have seen so far.

    Another Policy Switch

    In December 2008. the FDA opened yet another chapter in this debate and declared that rebaudioside A (rebiana) – the other sweetener found in stevia – was GRAS.  Somehow, ABC News broke this story:

    From the official GRAS approval letter:

    The subject of the notice is rebaudioside A purified from Stevia rebaudiana (Bertoni) Bertoni. The notice informs FDA of the view of Cargill, Incorporated (Cargill) that rebaudioside A is GRAS, through scientific procedures, for use as a general-purpose sweetener in foods, excluding meat and poultry products, provided that food standards of identity do not preclude such use, at levels determined by current good manufacturing practices (cGMP).

    Obviously aware of yet another policy contradiction, the FDA puts out a one-line statement in the GRAS notice about stevia, the plant that remains banned as a sweetener [emphasis mine]:

    The rebaudioside A that is the subject of GRAS Notice No. GRN 000253 is a highly purified component of the stevia plant. As such, FDA notes that the GRAS notice for the use of a specific purified component of stevia, such as rebaudioside A, and FDA’s response do not necessarily apply to the uses of other stevia products.

    The wording of this final statement here is especially interesting because the FDA is leaving the door open for yet further interpretation.  If this decision ‘does not necessarily apply’ to other uses of Stevia, companies that want to use stevia in their products may be able to petition the FDA for yet another policy change. Regardless, despite rebiana being approved as GRAS, stevia can still only be sold as a dietary supplement, not as a sweetener.

    From the Peanut Gallery…

    Nutrition Wonderland repeatedly tried to get in touch with different offices inside of the FDA to clarify their contradictory positions regarding stevia and rebiana but our calls were never returned.  Without a direct comment from the FDA, we can only speculate as to what was happening with regard to their policy – but that position really isn’t that hard to ascertain from the evidence.

    How the mighty have fallen…

    Based on the financiers of the rebiana studies (Cargill and Coca-Cola), the speed with which this decision was made and the history of stevia, we are left to conclude that rebiana- and consequently Truvia and PureVia – were simply approved because of who petitioned the FDA.

    Now, the FDA’s ruling does not mean that rebiana is not safe – but then again we don’t know that it is completely safe.  It’s hard what to know here.  We do know one thing though – with giants like Coca-Cola, Cargill, PepsiCo and Merisant banging at the FDA’s door, it becomes pretty obvious that there was little chance rebiana would be kept out of the market, regardless of what the science said.  The FDA’s position on stevia has never (well, post 1991 at least) sided with science.  This decision brings into question many of the other food additives that the FDA has approved, namely aspartame – whose makers may have been active in getting stevia banned.

    Nutrition Wonderland also contacted the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a reputable food watchdog, who was cautiously optimistic about Truvia back in June 2008 in a WebMD article.  They have since dramatically reversed their position based largely upon new information from a report put out by UCLA showing why rebiana and stevia in general is unsafe.  You can view it below:

    We read over its arguments as to why rebiana is unsafe in this report but they are not as convincing as CSPI would have you believe.  While rebiana is not fully tested, this report finds fault with nearly every study published to date on the subject of stevia.  Its hard to buy into the idea that this much bad science was performed.  Nutrition Wonderland has extreme doubts about the Truvia-sponsored science we thoroughly discussed in our earlier review but the safety of stevioside seems well proven, based on its use in Japan for over 30 years.  Additionally, this report may have been performed at the behest of CSPI itself, making us leery of its findings as much as we are leery of Cargill’s.

    We contacted the CSPI repeatedly to make sense of their changing positions but they have not made a public statement to us regarding this situation.

    Final Words about Stevia > Rebiana > Truvia/PureVia

    In general with food, we see a destructive pattern with each refined product brought onto the market place.  Whole grains reduce the risk of heart disease while refined grains increase it.  The fructose in honey helps the body, while the fructose in HFCS has been linked to obesity, diabetes and insulin resistance.  Cold pressed natural oils dramatically reduce inflammation, while heavily refined hydrogenated oils promote inflammation – and chronic disease.  Why refined rebiana would be better for us than the whole leaf stevia has not been explained.

    Cheers or Jeers?

    There is some reason to think extracts of stevia, specifically stevioside, could prove extremely beneficial in a refined form but Truvia and PureVia do not contain any of that material.  Both sweeteners are proprietary formulas containing the largely untested rebiana and large amounts of erythritol, another non-caloric sweetening agent.  In fact, by volume, Truvia and PureVia have more erythritol than they do rebiana.  There is still no science testing Truvia and PureVia themselves, which would show how these two sweeteners (rebiana and erythritol) metabolize together.

    More than anything, Nutrition Wonderland strongly believes these sweeteners were developed so that the companies involved, especially Cargill and Merisant, could own the intellectual property behind stevia – in effect owning the food.  Cargill released some justification for all this trouble, if you don’t mind very corporate video:

    It would have been far easier to just use stevia for commercial food production – but, since you cannot patent a natural food, this opportunity was overlooked in our opinion.  This pattern of using the intellectual property of food for profit is well established across the 21st century agribusiness industry, modeled after highly successful power plays by chemical giants in the sale of GMO seeds.

    We have doubts about the sponsored science involved, doubts about the motive of this product in general and deep suspicions as to why stevia remains banned from the marketplace.  Truvia and PureVia may in fact be perfectly safe – and preliminary science shows that to be the case – but far more research on these new sweeteners is required.  Even still, we will probably never know the truth.  It is now the American public’s turn to be the guinea pigs for another agribusiness experiment.  You can easily opt out of this debate – as we are – by enjoying any of these safe sweetening options:

    • regular stevia sweetener ‘supplements’
    • blackstrap molasses (unrefined)
    • organic agave nectar
    • brown “turbinado” cane sugar (avoid brown sugar from sugar beets as they are now GMO)

  • The Science Behind Truvia and PureVia Sweeteners (Rebiana)

    The FDA recently announced that they have cleared a new, zero calorie sweetener called rebaudioside A (rebiana) for sale in the US, calling it ‘safe for use in foods and beverages‘.

    NOTE: This article is the 2nd part of a series about Truvia and PureVia. You may want to read the first part to better understand this article:

    Part 1: Truvia and PureVia – A Window to the Past or the Future?

    As a result of this decision, two products featuring the new sweetener are coming to market – Truvia and PureVia.  Truvia was jointly developed between the soft drink maker Coca-Cola and agribusiness giant Cargill while PureVia was developed by PepsiCo in partnership with artificial sweetener industry veteran Merisant (under the proxy Whole Earth Sweetener Company).

    The Coca-Cola Company has already announced products, including Sprite Green and Odwalla Mojito Mambo and Pomegranate Strawberry Juices, that will be for sale in 2009 containing the additive Truvia.  Not to be outdone, PepsiCo will put PureVia in Sobe Zero Calorie Life Water and Trop50 – a new low calorie orange juice slated for March 2009 release.

    The idea of a real, zero calorie sweetener has been a goal of many agribusiness giants for some time but have Truvia and PureVia been adequately tested?   Nutrition Wonderland has gone through the science surrounding these new sweeteners and spoken with some major industry players to get the scoop.  We have found some positives and some serious negatives, which we will review here.

    Starting From the Beginning

    Truvia and PureVia contain mostly the same chemical formula, as you can see in our chart below.  Both are mostly made of two sweeteners, erythritol and rebiana (called Reb A in PureVia).  Erythritol is a substitute low calorie sugar-alcohol sweetener developed by the French company Cerestar who was later purchased by Cargill.  Sugar-alcohols are not really sugars; they require adding hydrogen to sugar molecules so the body ignores them.  Erythritol is a favorite because it supposedly does not cause as many stomach aches as other similar sweeteners.

    It was FDA approved back in 2001 based on contract science, some of which was sponsored by Cerestar itself [1,2].  The World Health Organization also reviewed erythritol and found it to be safe.  Little other science exists on the subject.

    We could spend more time on erythritol but there is not much new to report about it.  It has not been extensively used (up until now), it has not been extensively studied and it was approved quite awhile ago now.  It is a bit of a sweetener dark horse, if you will.

    PureVia vs. Truvia – Fight!

    PureVia, but not Truvia, adds in another sweetener called isomaltulose – another supposedly safe sweetener with just a little contract science behind it.  It is derived from regular sucrose to create a sweetener with a longer sustained energy release in the body.  The FDA gave this one a green light back in 2006 at the behest of German sugar giant Sudzucker AG.  Again, it has seen very little use in the American food supply and we just don’t know very much about it scientifically beyond the fact that it does not harm teeth and does not cause stomach aches.

    The Stevia Flower, photo by Ethel Aardvark

    The other major component of Truvia/PureVia, rebiana, comes from a small herb plant called stevia.  Stevia originally comes to us from South America – where it has been used medicinally for centuries by indigenous people.  Rebiana sweeteners represent the first commercial applications of stevia in the United States but not the first in the world.  Another sweetener derived from stevia – called stevioside – was developed by the Japanese in the late 1970s and now controls 40% of the sweetener market in Japan.  Consequently, what we scientifically know about stevia is mostly based on stevioside, not rebiana – a problem we will see throughout this discussion.

    The Concensus on Stevioside

    The science we do have about stevia has only come about recently – in the last 20 years or so.  Despite very few (if any) reports of adverse reactions in the Japanese population from stevioside, some studies found that it was mutagenic, that is it could mutate the DNA of rats.  These findings were later dismissed in scientific literature multiple times when it was shown only extremely large amounts – far larger than anyone could consume – created the mutation.

    Subsequent study of stevioside’s medical effects have found it confers significant health benefits to those who use it medicinally.  Improved immune system regulation [1,2,3] and improve glucose absorption in the body [1,2],  have led some researchers to suggest stevioside:

    “may have the potential of becoming a new antidiabetic drug for use in type 2 diabetes”

    Even further, stevioside helps regulate cholesterol and triglycerides [1,2], which means it may treat metabolic syndrome (also known as syndrome X).

    On the whole, these findings suggest stevioside has major benefits but what about rebiana?

    The Rouge Rebiana

    If you follow any of those study links above, they will dump you into the PubMed scientific database.  The US National Institute of Health (NIH) requires all studies they fund (which is a considerable number) to publish their studies into this database.  Logically, we first looked for Truvia and PureVia here.

    Pubmed, an amazing resource

    A search for either sweetener nets zero search results, as of February 2009 (feel free to try it yourself, click here) – despite all the stevioside research.  However, searching for rebiana nets us 49 very recent results, presumably the ones the FDA used to clear this product (compared to 181 for stevioside).

    Diving through the search results leads us to a special supplementary release in July 2008 by The Food and Chemical Toxicology Journal called “Rebaudioside A: An Assessment of Safety”.  As an aside, it should be noted this release perfectly coincided with Coca-Cola’s first PR campaign that released Truvia to the public with a lavish promotion at Rockefeller Center in New York City last summer.  Below is some footage of the event:

    As for the science in this tome, we find a total of 11 research articles published about rebiana.  One of them [#12] is a review of the toxicity of stevioside , which, as we covered above, we declared safe by a decent battery of tests.  Two others [#2, #11]  deal with the development of rebiana from the stevia plant, both casually suggesting the toxicology information of stevioside should equally apply to rebiana – a dubious claim at best considering how little research has been done on the later.

    However, another study in this group [#5] actually demonstrates that the two sweeteners are relatively similar.  They based this statement on how quickly they are absorbed by the body as you can see in this chart:

    Results from study #5 in the rebiana review

    While it seems convincing, this report did not use a control group or use any kind of statistical analysis to determine if the slight difference in absorption between the two sweeteners was statistically significant.  Further, the study used about 20% (.8 mg/kg) more rebiana than stevioside in its test, a factor that is sure to skew results.  Their observations also omitted an important data point when observing stevioside at the critical 1 hour mark.  Not to mention, the time schedule on the main graph in the report is misleadingly constructed to show each observation as having occurred in hourly succession (when in fact no observations were made in hours 2 or 3).  This science is very poor in quality and, not surprisingly, funded by Cargill.

    Another one of the studies [#4] dealt directly with the toxicity of rebiana by super-dosing rats and observing them.  Most rats ended up eating significantly less food and consequently attaining lower body weight as they aged, consistent with other megadose sweetener studies.  But, most importantly, the rats did not die from rebiana so we could count that as a good thing.  Methodology in this study was far more convincing than the previous study – controls were used and statistical significance was achieved.  Still, the result of this study – that rebiana produces appetite suppression, should be followed up with additional study, something the authors do not call for.  Again, you should note that this study was funded by Cargill which may have influenced the lack of a call for additional study, though this is a minor critique.

     

    Follow the money – its not hard

    Rebiana: The Human Studies

    Two of the remaining studies deal with people instead of mice, so they should carry the most weight in your mind.  The first, [#6] in rebiana study supplement] tested rebiana against blood pressure and found high dosed patients maintain the same blood pressure in a randomized, double-blind placebo trial, the best type to use.  We can say a few bad things about this study but nothing ridiculously major; it was only 4 weeks long, it did not test against people who already have high blood pressure (a substantial portion of the population), and, again, Cargill funded the study.  Overall, this is encouraging but it is only the first study of its kind so its hard to draw too much from it.

    Controversial little shrub, eh?

    The other human study deals with rebiana and how it effects people with type II diabetes..  The study uses a megadose, 7X what a heavy user would probably ingest, and followed a little more than 100 patients for about 4 months.  Results of this placebo study show no severe effects on blood pressure or blood sugar.  However, there was one case of hyperglycemia – that is too much glucose in the blood stream – but in a group of diabetics, something like this seems likely to happen during a 4 month period of time.  And let’s not forget to mention that some Cargill money managed to squeeze its way into the study.

    In a way, this particular finding was a bit of a disappointment.  There was hope that rebiana would treat diabetes much like it is suspected stevioside can but this is the second study to disprove that.  The first study on this topic showed that rebiana was not able to deliver any of the metabolic syndrome reducing effects of stevioside, so a consensus is forming.  A few others studies show rebiana helps regulate glucose, but there is still much more investigation necessary.

    First Thoughts

    The studies we have about rebiana – and consequently Truvia and PureVia – are a mixed bag.  As we showed, some demonstrate safety, some show risk.  None really deal with potential side effects, an issue with a product that will find its way deep into the food supply.  Most surprisingly though, absolutely no published studies have actually tested Truvia or PureVia themselves.  This is probably because the sweeteners themselves were not ready in advance to be tested but we must ask why the American public is being silently asked to bear that burden.

    It would appear rebiana (along with erythiritol and isomaltulose) present little risk to people with high blood pressure and type II diabetes but in the world of science, your opinions are an extension of the crowd.  In a sense, you are only as good as those that have come before you.  With rebiana, there is no concensus, no crowd – so there is no way we can give any type of authoritative opinion on it yet.  The crowds surrounding erythiritol and isomaltulose are even more sparse.

    That’s all a problem with a new product and one the makers of Truvia and PureVia have done very little to assuage.  While most of these studies appear to verify that rebiana et al., do not have toxic effects, they are all very short term and funded exclusively by industry.  It is beyond unlikely that any study funded by Cargill is going to show rebiana and Truvia to be anything but the safest sweetener ever to arrive on planet earth.  Having said that, some of their studies do appear to demonstrate safety of rebiana but it so hard for us to believe these results with so much of their own money on the table.

    Now, lets give Truvia and PureVia a little credit here.  This is the first sweetener product(s) developed by an agribusiness interest that is not purely a chemical.  A real plant is involved here and that is the first time that has ever happened.  Not only that, the stevia plant shows some rather amazing medical benefits.  So, for a brief moment, let us congratulate Cargill and Merisant for at least starting with something very beneficial found in nature.  That is a MAJOR step in the right direction.

    Still, major questions persist.  When will Truvia or PureVia actually be tested?  How can we trust science sponsored by the same people who will gain from its results? What makes this better than just using regular old stevia?

    In our next and final view of Truvia and PureVia, we will talk about how all of this science relates to stevia’s controversial past, discuss some of our conversations (and lack thereof) with government/NGO players and finally present our view on the best way forward with these sweeteners.

    Please read Part 3 of the Truvia/PureVia series:
    Part 3: Truvia and PureVia – The Controversy of Stevia
  • Mailbag: Clare Island Organic Salmon Omega-3s

    Mailbag: Clare Island Organic Salmon Omega-3s

    Credit, Steve 2.0 (flickr)

    Periodically, readers write into Nutrition Wonderland about issues we cover and we respond back to them.   This is a new column we will try to feature as we move forward – send all questions to [email protected] to be featured in the mailbag.

    Michelle from Virginia writes:

    I read with great interest your 12/08 article on the Nutrition Wonderland website entitled “Organic Fish Standards Announced by the USDA” – very informative and I learned some new and interesting facts regarding the subject.

    However I found your article while in search of a more specific question, and I’m hoping you can direct me to a source for answers.

    My local grocery store carries the Clare Island Organic Salmon from Ireland brand. I’ve learned from you and others that the level of omega 3 in wild vs farm raised salmon is largely based on the diet fed the fish. I’d like to know if the organic fish raised by this company are fed a diet that results in a higher level of omega 3s? Specifically, how does the level of omega 3s in this fish compare to that of wild caught Alaskan salmon?

    I went to the company’s website (https://mowi.com) and could not find any information about the omega 3 content of this particular product. Do you know of another, unbiased source of this information?

    Thank you so much. And keep doing what you do – we depend on folks like you!

    Michelle-

    Glad you found the organic fish information helpful.

    This statement from the parent company gives us some insight into the brand [emphasis mine]-

    Clare Island Organic Salmon are provided with special diets that contain only organic, natural ingredients and are free of genetically modified products. Phaffia, a yeast based pigment, ensures the salmon have that natural salmon-pink colour.

    There is an interesting way to look at this statement – only organic ingredients implies that these fish are only eating vegetables, not other fish and krill like wild fish would.  We know this because there still are no wild fish farms that produce smaller fish for the salmon to eat.   Clare island is part of a large firm called Marine Harvest, and large firms tend to cut corners on quality.  We also know they are probably using GMO-free corn probably and not using pink dyes.  Both of those are good steps but nutritionally, corn gives a higher omega 6:3 ratio so you are missing out there.

    Generally, salmon in colder waters will have more fat and better fat – which is logical if you think about it.  Its cold so they are trying to protect themselves from the cold with more fat by eating more krill – which is their main source of omega-3s naturally.  That’s why wild Alaskan salmon is your best bet.

    You probably aren’t hurting yourself with the farm raised product but a wild Alaskan salmon would do you better.  I find that trader joe’s offers a nice product as does whole foods.  You can also try to buy in bulk online straight from Alaska if you have a freezer to store it in.

    The Weston A. Price foundation publishes a great shopping guide that can help guide you to the right foods – they are only $1 each.  Unfortunately its not online but I have one and highly recommend it – there are fisheries listed in there.

    Here is the order form:
    https://www.westonaprice.org/get-involved/#gsc.tab=0