nutritionwonderland

Category: Featured

  • Understanding Our Bodies: Leptin (The Fullness Hormone)

    Understanding Our Bodies: Leptin (The Fullness Hormone)

    Time and time again, I tell you guys that the best way to stay healthy is to stay informed. Read labels, I say. Know what you’re eating. Know what you’re not eating. Know this, know that, etc and make informed decisions. Well, part of making informed decisions is understanding how your body works. And for that reason, I’ve decided to dive into a bit of physiology.

    Even informed consumers tend to know very little about how their appetites actually work. What makes you hungry or full? Why do some foods fill us up more than others? What exactly is going on in our bodies, anyway?

    I figured you just might want to know. So here is part one of a new series I call “Understanding Our Bodies” – nutrition based on how our bodies work. And to kick it off is a little explanation of the fullness hormone: Leptin.

    What is Leptin?

    Leptin is a hormone that is tied closely to regulating energy intake and expenditure, including appetite, metabolism and hunger. It is the single most important hormone when it comes to understanding why we feel hungry or full. When present in high levels, it signals to our brain that we’re full and can stop eating. When low, we feel hungry and crave food. It does this by stimulating receptors in our hypothalamus, the part of our brains which regulates the hormone system in our bodies. When leptin binds to receptors in this part of our brains, it stimulates the release of appetite-suppressing chemicals. People with leptin disorders eat uncontrollably.

     

    Your leptin LEVEL is high when you are full, low when you are hungry

    Now here’s the strange part.  Leptin is produced mostly by our adipose tissue – aka our fat.  The level of circulating leptin is directly proportional to the total amount of fat in the body.  That means the more fat you have, the greater the amount of leptin you have. It may seem counter-intuitive, but it makes sense in the end when we consider how yo-yo dieting tends to be. It takes some time for your body to adjust to large changes in body fat levels when it comes to leptin.

    The total AMOUNT of leptin you have is related to your weight

    So when you lose a lot of weight quick, via liposuction or serious calorie restriction, your leptin levels plummet. Subsequently, you get hungrier, your thyroid decreases output and your metabolic rate drops. Your body then increases catabolic hormone activity and appetite, making you tend to slip off your regime and gain all that weight right back. That’s why crash diets are often ineffective – your leptin won’t let you eat less, and even if you do, you’re lethargic and your metabolic rate slows way down.

    Of course, just because it makes things difficult for dieting, leptin levels are far more sensitive to starvation than overeating. So when you cut caloires and start ot burn fat, the leptin levels in your body plummet, but when you eat too much they don’t skyrocket – although they do increase. Leptin levels increase with increased insulin levels, like right after eat, and when our body is storing energy. Keeping this in mind, in general, can help you eat healthier and loser weight in the long run.

    The Science of Leptin

    Obviously, since leptin is so key to hunger and feeling full, scientists have been looking into it as a possible target for anti-obesity or weight loss. As it turns out, leptin controls a lot more than just our feelings of fullness.

    Turning on leptin in the brains of mice causes them to exercise more, according to research from Harvard Medical School. It’s interwoven into how our bodies control our metabolism, activity levels, and energy budgeting – like immediately increasing appetite when fasting. While levels drop quickly, eating can bring them back up, too. It has been shown to reduce lipids in muscle and other tissues which lead to insulin resistance (the first step towards type 2 diabetes). It even controls what foods we find appealing when we’re just looking at them. Basically, it seems like the perfect way to lose weight – just give people more leptin,  right?  Well, there is another factor at work.

    Leptin Resistance

    But when researchers gave people leptin in human clinical trials, people didn’t lose weight. The trouble is, your body constantly tries to adjust basal leptin levels. If there’s a lot of it all the time, like in obese and overweight people, the brain loses sensitivity. Mice can become leptin resistant after as few as 3 days of overfeeding – so it happens quickly in response to consistent high blood glucose levels.

    When obese, your leptin LEVELS spike radically because you have higher leptin AMOUNTS in your body (causing leptin resistance in the brain)

    When it does this, it takes more and more leptin before our bodies feel full. When we get fatter, our bodies produce more leptin, and we become resistant to it. So obese people actually have unusually high leptin levels, but are not responsive to it. Even when healthy people eat a much lower calorie diet for a little while,  levels decrease, and they feel hungrier and less energetic, even if they haven’t lost weight yet. To lose weight and keep it off, you have to give your body time to adjust to the new, lowered leptin level, so it sets that as “normal” and you feel full when you’re supposed to.

    Yes, he is.

    The bad news is that not just excess weight can lead to leptin resistance. A new study published in the American Journal of Physiology found that high fructose diets can induce leptin resistance. These sugars actually impair the leptin’s ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and reach the hypothalamus. So even when the leptin levels are high, not enough is reaching the brain to tell the body to stop eating.

    How do you use this information to lose weight or keep healthy?

    First things first: quit the crash diets. You aren’t going to do your body any favors by losing weight too quickly. If you are trying to lose weight, though, there’s one thing you can do to help your body out: cheat. Seriously.

    When you cut calories dramatically, your body acts like its starving and your leptin levels plummet. You’ll be hungry and generally have lower energy levels and want to eat more. So, once a week or so, cheat. Really cheat. Have a nice, high-calorie meal.

    Your body then senses the rush of fuel and boosts leptin levels, increasing your metablism and priming your body for fat loss. Cheating helps ease your body down to lower daily leptin levels without making it feel too starved. That way, as you lose the weight, your body adjusts and realizes that the reduced leptin levels are normal not starving. And you get to enjoy something delicious – come on, it’s a win-win!

    A beautiful sockeye salmon

    Secondly, avoid too much sugar intake. High calorie loads aside, the sugars make your brain less sensitive to leptin, which causes you to eat more and pack on the pounds. Conversely, some foods have been shown to increase leptin activity and sensitivity. The biggest connection scientists have found is between Omega-3 Fatty Acids and leptin. That’s right – the ever remarkable fish just keep getting better and better.  Researchers found that a group of people who ate a high proportion of fish every day had lower leptin levels despite eating the same calorie loads and having the same body fat as their fish free cousins – suggesting that a fish-rich diet increased their bodies’ sensitivity to leptin.

    There’s good news, too, for those that are already overweight and leptin resistant: it’s only temporary. Research has shown that reducing fat content in leptin-resistant, obese mice allowed them to regain leptin sensitivity. So even if you’re overweight and likely leptin resistant, you can improve on that state. Unlike type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance, which is very hard to reverse, leptin resistance is fairly correctable with a normal, healthy diet and exercise.

    And lastly, there’s something really simple that everyone can do to keep their leptin levels high and keep cravings under control: sleep well. When you go to sleep, your leptin levels naturally rise – after all, you want to be sleeping, not snacking, so your body knows to cut down on your hunger while you’re resting. But if you cut your sleeping short, your body tries to adjust by making you hungry again. Research has found that shorter sleep periods (6 hours or less instead of 8) lower overall daily leptin levels, cause an increase in appetite, and even make people crave carbs and other fattening foods. So its important for your body to rest well to maintain its natural hormonal balance, allowing you to look and feel your best.

    In summary:

    • Stop crash diets
    • Eat ONE large meal per week to spark leptin-based weight loss
    • Avoid processed sugar
    • Eat Omega-3 (in fish/flaxseed/walnuts)
    • Sleep well

    Like any other system in our bodies, the our hormonal appetite controls are sensitive to our daily habits and routines. The better a routine you have – sleeping well, eating right, and exercising, the more balanced your system will be and the better you will feel.

    Stay tuned for more deep dives into the physiology of nutrition with the next installment of Understanding Our Bodies!

    References:

    1. Williams, K., Scott, M., & Elmquist, J. (2009). From observation to experimentation: leptin action in the mediobasal hypothalamus American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89 (3), 985-990 DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2008.26788D
    2. Havel, P. (2007). Role of adipose tissue in body-weight regulation: mechanisms regulating leptin production and energy balance Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 59 (03) DOI: 10.1017/S0029665100000410
    3. Huo, L., Gamber, K., Greeley, S., Silva, J., Huntoon, N., Leng, X., & Bjørbæk, C. (2009). Leptin-Dependent Control of Glucose Balance and Locomotor Activity by POMC Neurons Cell Metabolism, 9 (6), 537-547 DOI: 10.1016/j.cmet.2009.05.003
    4. Pratley RE, Nicolson M, Bogardus C, & Ravussin E (1997). Plasma leptin responses to fasting in Pima Indians. The American journal of physiology, 273 (3 Pt 1) PMID: 9316457
    5. Chin-Chance C, Polonsky KS, & Schoeller DA (2000). Twenty-four-hour leptin levels respond to cumulative short-term energy imbalance and predict subsequent intake. The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism, 85 (8), 2685-91 PMID: 10946866
    6. Enriori, P., Evans, A., Sinnayah, P., Jobst, E., Tonelli-Lemos, L., Billes, S., Glavas, M., Grayson, B., Perello, M., & Nillni, E. (2007). Diet-Induced Obesity Causes Severe but Reversible Leptin Resistance in Arcuate Melanocortin Neurons Cell Metabolism, 5 (3), 181-194 DOI: 10.1016/j.cmet.2007.02.004
    7. Zelissen, P., Stenlof, K., Lean, M., Fogteloo, J., Keulen, E., Wilding, J., Finer, N., Rossner, S., Lawrence, E., Fletcher, C., McCamish, M., & , . (2005). Effect of three treatment schedules of recombinant methionyl human leptin on body weight in obese adults: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 7 (6), 755-761 DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2005.00468.x
    8. Wang, J., Obici, S., Morgan, K., Barzilai, N., Feng, Z., & Rossetti, L. (2001). Overfeeding Rapidly Induces Leptin and Insulin Resistance Diabetes, 50 (12), 2786-2791 DOI: 10.2337/diabetes.50.12.2786
    9. Keim NL, Stern JS, & Havel PJ (1998). Relation between circulating leptin concentrations and appetite during a prolonged, moderate energy deficit in women. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 68 (4), 794-801 PMID: 9771856
    10. Shapiro A, Mu W, Roncal C, Cheng KY, Johnson RJ, & Scarpace PJ (2008). Fructose-induced leptin resistance exacerbates weight gain in response to subsequent high-fat feeding. American journal of physiology. Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology, 295 (5) PMID: 18703413
    11. Peyron-Caso E, Taverna M, Guerre-Millo M, Véronèse A, Pacher N, Slama G, & Rizkalla SW (2002). Dietary (n-3) polyunsaturated fatty acids up-regulate plasma leptin in insulin-resistant rats. The Journal of nutrition, 132 (8), 2235-40 PMID: 12163668
    12. Winnicki M, Somers VK, Accurso V, Phillips BG, Puato M, Palatini P, & Pauletto P (2002). Fish-rich diet, leptin, and body mass. Circulation, 106 (3), 289-91 PMID: 12119240
    13. Enriori, P., Evans, A., Sinnayah, P., Jobst, E., Tonelli-Lemos, L., Billes, S., Glavas, M., Grayson, B., Perello, M., & Nillni, E. (2007). Diet-Induced Obesity Causes Severe but Reversible Leptin Resistance in Arcuate Melanocortin Neurons Cell Metabolism, 5 (3), 181-194 DOI: 10.1016/j.cmet.2007.02.004
    14. Nedeltcheva AV, Kilkus JM, Imperial J, Kasza K, Schoeller DA, & Penev PD (2009). Sleep curtailment is accompanied by increased intake of calories from snacks. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 89 (1), 126-33 PMID: 19056602
    15. Taheri, S., Lin, L., Austin, D., Young, T., & Mignot, E. (2004). Short Sleep Duration Is Associated with Reduced Leptin, Elevated Ghrelin, and Increased Body Mass Index PLoS Medicine, 1 (3) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0010062

  • Glycemic Index Table v1.0

    With insulin resistance and diabetes reaching epidemic levels in the United States, it is imperative to know the glycemic index of the foods we are commonly eating. Unfortunately, this data is usually locked away in research journals and when it is made available, you get a million listings with a ton of garbage results for foods you’ve never heard of. Well, we got tired of that and fixed up a nice GI table.

    We dug around a bit and have come up with the latest information on GI values for the most common foods, pulled from many sources by esteemed researchers at the Diabetes Care Journal.

    This is by no means the whole list. There must be 3,000-4,000 foods and products profiled for this survey. We cherry picked what we felt would be the most important for you to see. Sometimes less is more and we feel this is one of those times.

    If we missed any major ones, let us know. The full lists are at the bottom if you want to download/view them.

    Enjoy the list.

    Glycemic Index (GI) of Common Foods

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

    Grains, Breads, Cereals
    Food GI Value Accuracy
    Whole Wheat Bread 74 ± 2
    White Bread 75 ± 2
    Multi-Grain Bread 53 ± 2
    Whole Wheat Indian Bread (Roti/Chapatti) 62 ± 3
    White Indian Bread (Roti/Chapatti) 52 ± 4
    Tortilla, Corn 46 ± 4
    Brown Rice 68 ± 4
    White Rice 73 ± 4
    Basmati Rice, White 57 ± 4
    Barley 28 ± 2
    Whole Wheat Pasta 48 ± 5
    White Pasta 49 ± 2
    White Rice Noodles 53 ± 7
    Udon Noodles 55 ± 7
    Couscous (Wheat) 65 ± 4
    Cornflakes (Kellogg’s) 81 ± 52
    Instant Oats 79 ± 3
    Rolled Whole Oats 55 ± 2
    Millet 67 ± 5
    Museli 57 ± 2
    Clif Bar 101 ± 6
    Powerbar 83 ± 11
    Mac and Cheese 64 n/a
    Amaranth 97 ± 19
    Rice Krispies (Kellogg’s) 82 n/a
    Rice Chex 89 n/a
    Total (General Mills) 76 n/a
    Life (Pepsico) 66 n/a
    Grapenuts (Altria) 67 n/a
    Cream of Wheat 66 n/a
    Cheerios (General Mills) 74 ± 0
    Sourdough Rye 56 ± 0
    Gluten-Free Bread 74 ± 6
    Bagel 72 ± 0
    Waffles 76 ± 0
    Muffins (average) 67 ± 35
    Doughnut 76 ± 0
    Flan 65 ± 0
    Cake (Average) 52 ± 13
    Croissant 67 ± 0
    Pancakes (Wheat) 64 ± 18
    Pancakes (Buckwheat) 102 ± 11
    Gluten-Free Bread (Average) 64 ± 24
    Spelt Bread, Whole 63 ± 0
    Coco Pops (Kelloggs) 77 ± 8
    Corn Pops (Kelloggs) 80 ± 4
    Froot Loops (Kelloggs) 69 ± 9
    Kashi Seven Whole Grains (Kelloggs) 65 ± 10
    Special K, US Variety (Kelloggs) 69 ± 5
    Buckwheat (Soba) Noodles 59 ± 1
    Brown Rice Noodles 92 ± 8
    Gluten-Free Pasta 76 ± 6

    Fruits, Vegetables, Nuts & Legumes (raw unless noted)
    Food GI Value Accuracy
    Sweet Corn 52 ± 5
    Apples 36 ± 2
    Oranges 43 ± 3
    Banana 51 ± 3
    Pineapple 59 ± 8
    Mango 51 ± 5
    Watermelon 76 ± 4
    Dates 42 ± 4
    Peaches, Canned 43 ± 5
    Strawberry Jam 49 ± 3
    Apple Juice 41 ± 2
    Orange Juice 50 ± 2
    Potato, boiled 78 ± 4
    Potato, instant 87 ± 3
    Carrots, boiled 39 ± 4
    Carrots 16 n/a
    Pumpkin, Boiled 64 ± 7
    Plantain 55 ± 6
    Taro, boiled 53 ± 2
    Chickpeas 28 ± 9
    Kidney Beans 24 ± 4
    Lentils 32 ± 5
    Edimame (Raw Soybeans) 16 ± 1
    Black Beans 30 n/a
    Brown Beans 38 n/a
    Yam 25 ± 4
    Sweet Potato 48 ± 6
    Beets 64 ± 16
    Peas, Cooked 35 ± 4
    Peanuts 18 ± 3
    Pinto Beans 42 n/a
    Lentils – Red 26 ± 4
    Lentils – Green 26 ± 8
    Kidney Beans 23 n/a
    Grapefruit Juice 48 n/a
    Raisins 66 ± 6
    Pear 38 ± 10
    Peach 42 ± 14
    Papaya 60 ± 8
    Grapes 46 ± 6
    Kiwi 47 ± 4
    Grapefruit 25 n/a
    Apricots 34 ± 3
    Ginger 10 ± 4
    Strawberries 40 ± 7
    Cranberry Juice 59 ± 0
    Tomato Juice (V8 – Campbell’s) 33 ± 3
    Cashews 25 ± 1

    Dairy Products
    Food GI Value Accuracy
    Milk, Cow – Full Fat 39 ± 3
    Milk, Cow – Skim 37 ± 4
    Yogurt 41 ± 2
    Soy Milk 34 ± 4
    Rice Milk 86 ± 7
    Ensure 75 ± 10
    Slimfast 35 ± 2

    Junk Food / Sugars
    Food GI Value Accuracy
    French Fries 63 ± 5
    Chocolate 40 ± 3
    Potato Chips 56 ± 3
    Soft Drink 59 ± 3
    Rice Crackers/Chips 87 ± 2
    Popcorn 65 ± 5
    Fructose 15 ± 4
    Sucrose 65 ± 4
    Glucose 103 ± 3
    Honey 61 ± 3
    Corn Chips 74 n/a
    Pizza, Cheese 70 n/a
    Gatorade (Pepsico) 89 ± 12
    Coca-Cola 63 ± 0
    Lean Cuisine (average- Nestle) 46 ± 8
    Hamburger (McDonalds) 66 ± 8
    Chicken McNuggets (McDonalds) 55 ± 6
    Ice Cream 51 ± 3
    Gelato 38 ± 5
    Lifesavers – Nestle, Peppermint 70 ± 6
    Milky Way (Mars) 62 ± 8
    Snickers (Mars) 51 ± 0
    Agave Syrup (high fructose) 13 ± 0
    Hummus 6 ± 4

    The rest of the table, Parts I + II:


    Notes:

    GI Index values do not tell you the whole story! Blood sugar can be effected by factors like which foods you eat together, how long ago your last meal was, etc.

    Additionally, food high in fructose register very low in their glycemic index. This occurs because fructose takes a special metabolic detour in your body, straight to the liver – and only the liver deals with fructose. This general idea is one of the major theories behind the rise in insulin resistance and diabetes across America. Beware of all sugary foods (minus produce – apples arent going to kill you).

    Sources:

    • Atkinson FS, et al. International tables of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2008. Diabetes Care. 2008 Dec;31(12):2281-3.
    • Chart from the study

    Version 1.0 – (2009.06.07)

  • Brain Food: Nuts! (Part 1)

    Brain Food: Nuts! (Part 1)

    Many supplement pills or health foods claim to boost brain power – all you have to do is pay an arm and a leg for their product. The advertising divisions are counting on the fact that consumers don’t really know what’s in their foods or what compounds are the ones that boost their brains. And, since everyone wants a mental edge, whether it be for work or school, many people fall victim to clever marketing and outrageous ad claims. But, luckily, you read Nutrition Wonderland – so you know that you don’t have to pay some corporation for good nutrition. If you want some healthy brain-boosters, all you have to do is take a trip to the grocery store.

     

    Squirrel nuts away like this guy, thanks to flickr user Noël Zia Lee

    Many foods are packed with compounds that help boost memory, concentration, motor skills, and mental clarity. Some even have shown to help prevent brain degenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s. Most importantly, all these brain super-foods can be found at a supermarket – you just have to know what to look for! Here are some easy items from the nut family you can add to your diet to get the most out of your mental muscle without breaking the bank.

    Go Nuts

    All kinds of nuts have been shown to be great brain boosters. The main reason nuts and seeds are so good for our minds is that they’re chock full of Vitamin E, particularly almonds and hazelnuts. “Vitamin E” is not actually one specific compound – it’s the collective name for a group of fat-soluble compounds with distinctive antioxidant activities. Antioxidants are the compounds which protect our bodies from damaging themselves, allowing cells to function better and stay healthier longer. It’s said that Vitamin E, compared with other antioxidants, are the ones which most readily enter cells, and thus are effective at low doses.

    The Hazelnut – your source for Vitamin E

    Vitamin E has been linked to all kinds of great protective effects in the brain, from preventing disease to improving brain power. One study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that supplemental dietary vitamin E delayed the progression of the Alzheimer’s. Another study found that Vitamin E and C together protected older Japanese men from dementia and improved their overall cognitive function. Of course, nuts aren’t the only foods with Vitamin E. You’ll find quite a bit of it in:

    • broccoli
    • kiwi
    • avocados
    • spinach
    • vegetable oils
    • whole grain foods

    Nuts also have more to offer than just Vitamin E. Walnuts, for example, have been found to be a great brain food, but they don’t have a whole lot of Vitamin E. Instead, they’re packed with Omega 3 fatty acids – the same compounds found in high concentrations in intelligence-boosting fish. Over 2,000 scientific studies  demonstrate the incredible range of problems associated with a lack of Omega 3s – of which walnuts and fish are pretty much our only common dietary sources – and even still scientists estimate that 60% of Americans have diets that are deficient in Omega 3 fatty acids, and about 20% of Americans so low on these key lipids that blood tests won’t even detect Omega 3s in their blood.

    The brain is complicated – so check out how it works to understand why you need to feed it correctly:

    You have to understand – the brain is 60% fat. You need fats to keep the brain functioning and working well, and not all fats are created equal. Fill yourself with junk food and your brain will consist of more junk fat. For the mind, the best are those Omega 3 fatty acids found in walnuts and fish. These fats end up in the nerve cell membranes and work to make them more fluid, which allows them to be more responsive to cellular signals and make them more efficient at sharing and receiving information. One study, published in the British Journal of Nutrition, found that a diet which includes 1 ounce of walnuts a day (7-9 of them) can improve balance, coordination and spatial memory – at least in rats.

    Nuts and Neurotransmitters

    Walnuts also contain phosphatidylcholines, a group of lipids which are major components of membranes and can be cut to give choline, a key part of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, which helps speed up the signal transmission between brain cells, allowing your brain to process and store information much faster.

    Peanuts and pecans are also packed with choline. Other nuts and seeds, like pumpkin and sunflower seeds, contain high levels of tryptophan, an amino acid key to making seratonin. Sunflower seeds are also particularly great because they have high levels of thiamine, a B vitamin important for memory and overall brain power.

    Here is a great little video to help show you whats going on in your brain (you want to help this electrical storm out!):

    Almonds, part of the solution

    Almonds contain phenylalanine, which unlike other compounds crosses the blood-brain barrier easily, and has been shown to alleviate Parkinson’s Disease and boost the neurotransmitters dopamine and adrenaline. Dopamine levels are important for good memory, attention, and problem solving skills, and adrenaline is linked to focus and attention as well as energy. Cashews have magnesium, which helps dilate the blood vessels in our bodies allowing more oxygenated blood to nourish our neurons. In general, just about every nut has a brain-boosting effect outside the generally high Vitamin E levels.

    Keep in mind, though, that nuts, while chock full of goodies, are also high in calories – so don’t overdo them. Also, you can have too much of a good thing: some of the studies which looked at nut doses found that really high doses actually impaired the brain, whereas moderate doses improved it. So sticking with a couple ounces of nuts and seeds a day as a snack is probably better than replacing an entire meal with them.

    This article is the first part of a two part series on Brain Food – you may find the next article on berries and greens helpful.

    References:

    1. Sano M, Ernesto C, Thomas RG, Klauber MR, Schafer K, Grundman M, Woodbury P, Growdon J, Cotman CW, Pfeiffer E, Schneider LS, & Thal LJ (1997). A controlled trial of selegiline, alpha-tocopherol, or both as treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. The New England journal of medicine, 336 (17), 1216-22 PMID: 9110909
    2. Masaki KH, Losonczy KG, Izmirlian G, Foley DJ, Ross GW, Petrovitch H, Havlik R, & White LR (2000). Association of vitamin E and C supplement use with cognitive function and dementia in elderly men. Neurology, 54 (6), 1265-72 PMID: 10746596
    3. Willis, L., Shukitt-Hale, B., Cheng, V., & Joseph, J. (2008). Dose-dependent effects of walnuts on motor and cognitive function in aged rats British Journal of Nutrition, 101 (08) DOI: 10.1017/S0007114508059369
  • Mailbag: Is milk good for me? Sheep Milk?

    Mailbag: Is milk good for me? Sheep Milk?

    How good is milk for me?  In particular, how good is sheep milk of the Spanish Manchego variety?

    Jessica, Washington DC

    Dairy Up Close

    Pretty healthy, in moderation – thanks to flickr user: redfishid

    These are excellent questions.  Most dairy products have great nutritional profiles.  They are loaded with good fats, minerals like the antioxidant selenium and vitamins like vitamin D, crucial to good bone health.  The USDA inspects the behind most food stuffs, including sheep’s milk (which you can see here), search for sheep milk), but not the Manchego variety in particular.  More than a particular species like Manchego Sheep, proper animal husbandry translates into better nutrition in the animals’ finished products, as we have seen in previously – especially in the fat profile.  Look for pasture raised milk as these animals generally eat the best food.  You may have to get very creative to find it.  Local food co-ops are your best bet.

    Watch this video to better understand what proper animal care really means for your health:

    Nutritionally though, things get more complex.  Most people eat dairy because they think its high in calcium.  What they dont know is that calcium can only be absorbed into the body when its eaten with vitamin D and phosphorus.  You could eat 100 pounds of cheese and, if you didn’t have any phosphorus or vitamin D, none of the calcium would be absorbed into your bones.

    The Calcium Phosphorus Connection

    Fortunately, these nutrients usually occur together, although in variable amounts.  The calcium in dairy products if any kind can best be tolerated by the body when the balance of calcium and phosphorus are closest to that of human mother’s breast milk, which is 2:1 calcium to phosphorus.  This ratio is far higher than the calcium and phosphorus ratio present in the milk from most other mammals, like cow’s milk (~1.3:1), goat’s milk (~1.2:1) and sheep’s milk (~1.2:1).  [1,2].  (Remember, these numbers are just averages and could range wildly depending on what the cow is eating or what kind of soil your crops are in, something the USDA never considers.)

    A German study postulates that the evolutionary advantage of the lower phosphoric content in humans allowed their excrement to remain exceptionally acidic, thereby killing additional pathogens that could harm humans many thousands of years ago.  This also made humans exceptionally good at extracting phosphorus from food sources, which can be both good and bad.

     

    Yes, he is.

    Westernized diets are extremely tilted towards phosphoric foods like corn (.08:1 ratio) and chicken (.09:1 ratio), which have over 10X more phosphorus than calcium!   You can quickly see why our evolutionary advantage turns into a disadvantage: calcium deficiencies and osteoporosis are such a big issue now largely because we are getting excessive amounts of phosphorus and too little calcium from sources we cannot properly use.  This is one large reason to limit the amount of dairy, including sheep’s milk, that you are eating in general, and replace it with leafy greens like spinach – which tend towards the magic 2:1 calcium phosphorus ratio.  (Leafy greens are probably where most cultures got their dairy, as hard as the ‘Got Milk’ campaign has made that may be for you to believe.)

    Lactose

    Another problem with dairy, including sheep’s milk, is that most humans rarely ate large quantities of dairy until the 20th century.  This leaves much of the world’s population unable to process the milk protein lactose, with some Asian and African ethnic groups over 90% lactose intolerant to some degree.  Below is a chart of the average lactose intolerance across some racial groups put out by UC Davis:

    Lactose Intolerance by ethnicity
    Race, Ethnicity, Country of Origin Percentage
    Southeast Asians 98%
    Asian Americans 90%
    Alaskan Eskimo 80%
    African-American Adults 79%
    Mexicans (rural communities) 74%
    North American Jews 69%
    Greek Cypriots 66%
    Cretans 56%
    Mexican American Males 55%
    Indian Adults 50%
    African American Children 45%
    Indian Children 20%
    Descendents of Northern Europe 5%

    Unless you are from Northern Europe, you are likely to have problem with dairy in general.  You may not think you are lactose intolerant because your body has built an immunity towards it but take a break from dairy for a couple of weeks and then revisit the subject.  You may be surprised by what you find.

    Lactose Intolerance by Country (via Wikipedia) – click on picture for full-size version

    Many people enjoy dairy despite lactose intolerance, you just have to be smart about it.  Although accurate lactose analysis methodology is not uniformly performed by the USDA, it is widely held that milk has the highest lactose content of any dairy product.  Try raw milk cheeses like swiss and cheddar, as cheese has less lactose than milk and raw varieties will have digestive enzymes which may aid digestion.

    Making Sense of Dairy

    Taking all this information together, it makes sense to eat dairy only in small amounts.  You should aim to get most of your calcium from leafy greens as it is far easier to digest and helps restore the delicate balance between calcium and phosphorus in your body.  It also makes sense to consider your ethnic background when eating sheep’s milk or any kind of dairy.  If you are asian, african, latino or jewish you should probably avoid all dairy with high amounts of lactose like pasteurized milk.  Raw milk, with its extra digestive enzymes might help but your mileage may vary.  Limited amounts of cheese, like feta, goat, swiss and cheddar are probably the best bet for most people who still want to enjoy dairy products from time to time.

    Sources:

    USDA Chart with Phosphorus and Calcium Ratios:
    http://www.answers.com/topic/phosphorus-and-calcium

    USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory:
    http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/

    Ethnic Lactose Intolerance:
    NCMHC Center for Nutritional Genomics (UC Davis)

  • Food Safety – The US Policy Dimensions of HR 875 and HR 759

    Food Safety – The US Policy Dimensions of HR 875 and HR 759

    ith the recent spat of recalls surrounding pistachios and peanut butter in the US, there has been a large response from the public to better safeguard the food supply. Industry is also starting to warm up to the idea because the cost of recalls are enormous. Food lawyer Bill Marler puts the cost of just the peanut recall alone at $1 billion dollars.

    The cries for change come amid another small scale outbreak observed in April 2009 regarding alfalfa sprouts in the NE US (follow the link for more information from the FDA).

    With all this tainted food floating around the food supply, the US congress says it wants change. The first step towards change has been the now familiar hearing between corporate officers and a Congressional subcommittee. You can see some of the testimony about the salmonella outbreak in peanuts here:

    Out of these meetings has come different ways to address the public’s concerns. Here we review some of the options currently being discussed against the wisdom of some leading food safety professionals.

    HR 875

    The most hyped up pronouncement from Congress has been HR 875. Introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn), the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 is a response to all the food safety crises that have happened in the first part of this year. The bill has gotten a lot of press in the last couple weeks and most of it has been negative.

    Red State – Blue State, together on HR 875

    All political ideologies seem to be enraged by this bill. The far left sustainable agriculture crowd is noticeably upset that the bill lumps together factory farming operations with local agriculture, making everyone submit to the same rule set. The far right group Reason asks about HR875′s impact on the ability to farm for yourself. This bill was also prominently featured in many of the politically right ‘Tea Parties‘ that happened on tax day.

    Both sides seem to focus on just one provision in the legislation – Section 3, Article 14, where a food production facility is defined so broadly as to encompass everything from a dairy farm to your mother’s backyard. From the bill:

    “(14) FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation.”

    DeLauro came on the Huffington Post to defend her motives and dissuade some of this bad press, claiming the far right was responsible for a disinformation campaign. She essentially argues all these fears are bogus because the commerce clause of the US constitution – the one that allows the US congress to regulate trade in the first place – only applies to interstate trade, not hyper-local farms and neighborhood gardens. (Unfortunately, that strict constructionalist view of the constitution has not been upheld by the Supreme Court, so DeLauro, et al. would need to formally make a provision for them in the legislation to get passed this political impasse.)

    The senator also posted a rebuttal to all this criticism on her own website. You can view it here:

    A Way Forward?

    Once you get beyond the political dimension, the big takeaway from HR 875 is that it would split the FDA into two new government agencies. A ‘Food Safety Administration‘ would be formed inside of the existing Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and be in charge of all things food while the FDA would largely turn into a ‘Drug Administration‘ with each new agency holding exclusive sway over their own fiefdoms. This is radical departure from the current system which uses a patchwork of provisions in many agencies across the government.

    This dual agency approach is largely applauded by the farming activist circuit, despite all the bad press this bill has gotten. Food and Water Watch tentatively agree with the position and so do the Trust for America’s Health + Robert Wood Johnson Foundation but problems still remain with this approach.

    Many food safety functions are carried out by the USDA and since HR 875 only addresses the FDA, most meat products (beef, fish, chicken, etc) would languish inside of our old system. Not to mention, the local dimension to food safety remains noticeably absent in HR 875, as no specific provisions for that group are included.

    H.R. 759

    The other major bill before Congress is H.R. 759, The Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act of 2009. This is a different approach at fixing food safety by modifying the FDA extensively, giving the agency far more authority to conduct inspections and take action based on what it finds while keeping it intact. But, in an even deeper blow to local farming, the rules of HR 759 apply generally to all size farms and restaurants, which obviously tips in favor of large-scale farming. Even worse, the FDA’s increased surveillance costs are shouldered by the very farmers they are evaluating. Parts of the bill get extremely complicated in how these fees are determined but here is a sample from the top section:

    SEC. 741. FACILITY REGISTRATION FEE.

    ‘(a) In General- The Secretary shall assess and collect a fee for a facility registration under section 415 to defray increases (as described in subsection (f)(2)(A)(ii)) in the costs of inspecting establishments registered under section 415 and for related activities to ensure compliance by such establishments with the requirements of this Act relating to food (including increases in such costs for management of information, and the acquisition, maintenance, and repair of information technology resources).

    Some of the language is so vague that local farmers might have reason to be concerned. These fees very wildly depending on what kind of an operation each farm and restaurant turn out to be; later in the bill it explains how these fees scale – a process that will likely see great change in the sausage maker of Capitol Hill. Additional costs from this bill are also substantial inside each farm and restaurant, as it extends electronic bookkeeping to these establishments for the first time.

    Money, money, money

    In this bill’s implementation, all of these fees are heavily tilted toward industrialized, large scale agriculture. These fees will likely be a far lower percentage of their gross income; think of these fee provisions as regressive farm taxes. With closer inspection, HR 759 looks far more dangerous to local farming than HR 875 – and because it takes a more pragmatic approach to revising the FDA, Food and Water Watch thinks it has a much better chance of passing.

    Other Dimensions

    Leading researchers from The George Washington University take a different path than any of these bills. They advocate for a similar system to HR 875 (link is a long read) but even more extensive, pulling departments from other agencies like the CDC and the USDA into the fold. They still concentrate food safety into the HHS department in their excellent position paper. Here are some of the major ideas from the paper:

    “Congress should direct the Secretary of HHS to create, in collaboration with the states, a National Foodborne Illness Data Program.”
    “Congress should establish and fund an intergovernmental Food Safety Leadership Council
    (FSLC) through which the federal government would collaborate with state and local
    governments to design and implement an integrated national food safety system”
    “Congress should establish traceability requirements that permit federal, state, and local officials to rapidly obtain from food companies reliable information on the source of commodities, ingredients, and finished products.”

    The way they advocate for local involvement is far different from any federal approach, and it appears to be based on good research evaluating how the system currently works in the real world.

    What’s Next?

    Connecting a new food safety system to existing local agencies appears to be a crucial step most of the currently pending approaches before the Congress fail to address. Most recalls start on a local level so those stations need to be able to coordinate a response with federal officials, especially considering just how global the food supply is now. Other best practices safety implementations like the HACCP system Marion Nestle passionately supports need to be incorporated into whatever final legislation is adopted.

    Who is in charge of me?

    There is also the question of how phytochemical plant-based supplements/drugs would fall in this dichotomy. Right now, the FDA regulates food supplements very loosely, while putting many screws to any drug that claims to treat or prevent a disease. A semantic tip-toe has existed within these fields for years; the main difference between drugs and supplements is that supplements are directly sourced from food and herbs while drugs are proprietary creations from pharmaceutical companies. While there is already a supplement regulation act (however flawed it is), an expanded FDA or revised dual-headed Food Agency/Drug Agency setup could seriously change how we view this category of products – and it is a huge industry now. This issue could get very contentious.

    One thing is clear though – our current food safety system is not working. We need something better and if you read our last piece on food safety, you know many interested parties have been advocating for just such an overhaul for more than 20 years. Now is clearly the time as the public is finally focused on the issue. Many good ideas are floating around but just as many bad ones are as well. Let’s hope Congress is listening to the roar on the internet from HR 875 and they include protections for small scale agriculture.

  • Are Raw Veggies Better Than Cooked Ones?

    Are Raw Veggies Better Than Cooked Ones?

    You’ve probably heard that it’s better to eat vegetables raw, nutritionally, than it is to cook them. The argument is that cooking vegetables destroys the vitamins and nutrients that are packed into raw foods. But is that really true? Are you destroying all the good stuff whenever you make a stir fry? Research says no. Cooked vegetables can be just as nutritious as raw ones are – and some are even more nutritious than their uncooked rivals.

    How Science Weighs in

    Be careful with me!

    There are definitely some vitamins and nutrients that are vulnerable to heating. Vitamin C is a great example. Heating tomatoes for 2 minutes can reduce the Vitamin C levels by 10%, loss which triples after half an hour 1. Of course, that means at least 70% of the Vitamin C is still in there. And when we’re talking about vegetables, we’re not just talking one nutrient. We have to look at the overall impact cooking has on a variety of nutrients. Evidence has found that cooking vegetables, particularly boiling them, can actually make them better for you.

    Why is cooking good?

    For one, it helps break down the tough compounds in plants that our body has trouble digesting like cellulose. By doing so, it actually makes nutrients more available to our digestive system. The same study which found a decrease in Vitamin C in tomatoes found an increase in the antioxidant lycopene, a much rarer nutrient which is linked to anti-cancerous activity and reduced risk of heart attacks. And in another study, researchers found that people an all-raw diet had low levels of lycopene 2. It’s likely that breaking down the plant cell walls made the lycopene more bioavailable.

    I’m more nutritious when cooked!

    Studies have also suggested that cooking actually boosts the antioxidant content of vegetables. One found that the total antioxidant capacities actually increased when a variety of vegetables were cooked by boiling, frying and steaming3. It’s well established that cooking can increase beta-carotene levels, a nutrient which we use to make Vitamin A4. Studies have also found that we only absorb 1-2% of the beta-carotene in vegetables like carrots, but cooking can raise the level we can absorb to over 75% 5. And while cooking Broccoli might damage the sulforophane, a nutrient linked to anti-cancerous activity, it increases the folate availability 6

    Other studies are less clear. One found that what you cooked and how mattered a lot. Deep frying increased the antioxidants in potatoes, artichokes and aubergine but reduced it for mushrooms and onions 7. In that same study, boiling increased antioxidants across the board but pan-frying reduced them. So different cooking methods can have different effects on different vegetables, some negative and some positive.

    So is it better to cook vegetables?

    Yes and no. It’s better to have a good mix of raw and cooked veggies in your diet. That way you get the best of both worlds. The key thing is not to presume that cooked vegetables are nutritionally poor, because they’re not. They’re also packed with vitamins and minerals, and some of them you can’t get as easily by eating the uncooked versions. Most important, though, is that you’re eating lots of fruits and vegetables to begin with. So if you don’t like to eat certain vegetables raw, cook them – it’s better you eat them cooked than not eat them at all, no matter how many of the nutrients cooking might destroy. And it doesn’t really matter whether you cook them or not if you’re eating your full servings greens, reds, and yellows every day. You’ll get the nutrients you need either way!

    Sources:

    1. Dewanto, V. et al. (2002). “Thermal Processing Enhances the Nutritional Value of Tomatoes by Increasing Total Antioxidant Activity.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 50(10), 3010-3014.

    2. Garcia, A.L., et al. (2008). “Long-term strict raw food diet is associated with favourable plasma β-carotene and low plasma lycopene concentrations in Germans.” British Journal of Nutrition 99, 1293-1300.

    3. Miglio, C., et al. (2008). “Effects of Different Cooking Methods on Nutritional and Physicochemical Characteristics of Selected Vegetables” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 56(1), 139-147.

    4. Talcott, S. T., L. R. Howard, and C. H. Brenes (2000). “Antioxidant Changes and Sensory Properties of Carrot Puree Processed with and without Periderm Tissue.” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 48(4), 1315-1321.

    5. Erdman, et al. (1993). “Absorption and transport of carotenoids.” Annual NY Academy of Sciences 691, 76-85.

    6. Clifford A.J., et al. (1990). “Bioavailability of folates in selected foods incorporated into amino acid-based diets fed to rats.” Journal of Nutrition 120(12), 1640-1647.

    7. Pellegrini, N. et al. (2009). “Effect of domestic cooking methods on the total antioxidant capacity of vegetables.” International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, Retrieved March 31, 2009, from http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/09637480802175212.

  • Lemon Buckwheat Pancakes with Sugared Berries, Cherries, and Apricot

    Lemon Buckwheat Pancakes with Sugared Berries, Cherries, and Apricot

    Below is the first of Tony the Chef’s targeted recipes for different metabolic typologies. These recipes accompany Patti the Nutritionist’s dieting guidelines, which we will be releasing in pieces of the next couple of months. For now, enjoy the food and soon you will learn how to integrate this recipe into a larger framework for your body.

    Pancakes, thanks to Flickr user: WayTru

    Pancakes, thanks to Flickr user: WayTru

    PANCAKES:

    • 1 32 oz. bag Arrowhead Mills Organic Buckwheat Pancake and Waffle Mix
    • 1 teaspoon lemon zest, finely chopped (per serving made)

    Make pancake batter according to the instructions on the package.  For ‘Type A’ bodies, use the non-dairy version.  Once batter is completed, just incorporate the zest into the batter.   Make pancakes as directed. Garnish with sugared berries (recipe follows).

    FRUIT:

    • 2 cups lemon juice
    • ½ cup sugar
    • ½ cup dried mixed berries
    • ½ cup dried cherries
    • ½ cup dried apricots

    In a small saucepan, simmer together lemon juice and sugar over medium-high heat until sugar has dissolved.  Add all the dried fruit.  Bring the mixture to a boil then reduce to a simmer for 5 minutes. Refrigerate uncovered to cool.  Serve over above pancakes instead of or in addition to syrup.  Enjoy.

  • Book Review: Safe Food by Marion Nestle

    Book Review: Safe Food by Marion Nestle

    What if this latest peanut-salmonella outbreak in 2009 was completely preventable?  What if the procedures to prevent it were already in place?  Even worse, what if we didn’t even have a food safety system at all?

    NOTE: This article is the 2nd 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: Food Safety – A Recent History

    After reading Marion Nestle’s Safe Food, you will see the world of irony and contradiction finds a comfortable home in food safety.  Or should we say, a lack of food safety.  For it becomes painfully obvious in Nestle’s work that, in fact, we do not have a food safety system in the United States and a wide array of interests are actively working to keep it that way.

    Going Down to Get Up

    But before Nestle’s takes us down that dark road, we are introduced to this dysfunctional world very quickly with the story of how Starlink genetically modified corn made its appearance throughout the food supply in countries with bans on GMO crops.

    Quick Facts about this Title

    Her treatment of the subject acts as an interesting twist on the typical introductions you generally see with non-fiction books.  We meet all the players, agencies and of course trickery in a haphazard fashion, instead of having it all methodically laid out.  The method is good – because if you are thirsty for facts, it prepares you for the coming Thanksgiving-like feast.  An avalanche of professional observations and research accompanies every point in this book.  For better or worse.

    This style immediately establishes credibility and you will not find yourself asking whether or not the author is qualified to speak on the subject.  With a Ph.D. in molecular biology form UC Berkeley, a spot on the FDA’s Food Advisory Committee and Science Board and the USDA/DHHS Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Marion Nestle does not really need a formal introduction to remind the reader she knows what’s going on – her prose does the job for her.

    And it’s Nestle prose that sets up an interesting dichotomy around which the entire book spins.  She breaks the world of food safety into two what we would call observational positions:

    • Science Based – ‘Benefits and Costs’
    • Value Based – ‘Fear and Dread ‘

    As she explains throughout the later parts of the book, parties involved with actually making food safe tend to view the situation in a purely scientific sense – ie, the benefits of GMO far outweigh the risks – whereas consumers in the general public use value based judgements – ie, the fear of what GMO could be outweigh the benefits.

    One of her central tenets is that the food makers need to satisfy the public’s value based concerns with the same perniciousness they purportedly apply to the science side of the equation – if we want to feel as if we have a safe food supply.  She claims this would go a long way to assuaging many people’s fears – an slightly provocative argument that would be a radical departure from how risks are currently evaluated.

    After the three – yes three – introductions, we get that the book contains two prominent sections and smaller rejoinder about pathogens, GMO crops and food terrorism, respectively.  But before you think she adopts such a staid format to the detriment of the book, keep in mind how explosive and controversial the subject matter she is dealing with really is.  Billions of dollars are the scale agribusiness operates on and Nestle handles each topic with the proper respect.

    After you find Nestle’s rhythm – which admittedly is not the easiest thing to do – the structure of the book fades away and you won’t find yourself burdened by it.  Other heavy lifting, however, is mandatory.

    Novel Concepts, Descriptive Means

    The cover…

    The book’s first section rips right into the meat of the issue, literally.  We get a first-hand account of the history of efforts and interventions that have been tried to implement a known protocol for ‘pathogen reduction’ called HAACP.  You’ll get a real sense of how much resistance there is on the part of industry to implementing these new controls.  Particularly disheartening was the section dealing with the government’s efforts to test ground beef for e.coli immediately before the Jack-in-the-Box outbreak of the early 90s.  From Page 77:

    “On October 14, the day before the rule for ground meat was to take effect, the federal court in Austin, Texas, issued an injunction that blocked the labeling plan, saying that the Jack in the Box outbreak was insufficient to justify ‘any departure from the normal rule-making procedures.’  Industry groups hailed the injunction as ‘a victory of fairness over bureaucracy.’  That very week, however, three children in Texas died from eating ground meat contaminated with E. coli O157:H7…”

    Similar tales of false starts and questionable means plague the history of food safety and Nestle pulls the curtains back in a fashion that is even and balanced.  You get the sense throughout her work that she, as an educator and public health advocate, is indeed enraged – even disgusted with the ways in which the system works but she never belies herself into a sycophant-like rage.  Instead, Nestle beautifully walks the tight-rope, delivering an objective review of the facts – a rare event in the charged world of food.

    GMO as Savior or Satan?

    Nowhere is this sensibility more pronounced than in the second part of her book, where she covers GMO crops.  Nestle gives her audience a good background on the issue and again dives into the core of the issue.  This time she focuses on the disconnect between researchers who better understand the mechanics of biotech foods and the consumers – reintroducing her dichotomy of science and value based arguments.  Particularly good is her chapter covering the ‘Politics of Consumer Concern’ – where she feels more comfortable in giving her opinion on the issues.  From Page 225:

    “What seems more surprising [about the food industry] is how much the industry’s unyielding opposition to labeling damages its own cause.  If public trust is the key to successful marketing, biotechnology companies should freely disclose their methods, economic goals, and products.”

    While she does give opinion, her treatment of the subject is really great because it, again, is able to show an objective view of the facts.  Sure, Nestle peppers her texts with her observations and opinions but she gives a fair shake to an industry she is usually in direct opposition to.

    The conclusion of the text is an applied section about how the politics of food safety play into bio-terrorism.  The section has a real strapped-on type feeling, especially considering how closely this book was published to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, mere blocks from her NYU teaching post.  Still, the section comes off as half-baked, possibly a move suggested by publishers to include a terrorism-related topic to move a few more copies in the wake of 9/11.

    Take the Good with the Bad

    Nestle covers all subjects thoroughly, at times too thoroughly.  Often complex analysis of super specific issues creates a significant hurdle to understanding the issues for most people outside of the world of nutrition and health.  You are constantly reminded as a reader that Ms. Nestle is a first and foremost an academic.  Her brilliance is frequently on display but so are her verbose explanations.

    It’s not that any concept she includes is particularly challenging in and of itself but taken together with the enormity of her topics, the political nature of the issue and the alphabet soup of acronyms you’ll find, Safe Food makes for a challenging read.  Observe a paragraph here where Nestle tries to explain the difficulties in determining food allergies (from page 173):

    “The widespread use of soy proteins – transgenic or not – in foods such as infant formulas, meat extenders, baked goods, and dairy replacements might be expected to increase the prevalence of soy allergies, but the increase would be difficult to detect unless it affected large numbers of people.  Worse, because methods to diagnose food allergies are unavailable or imprecise, the allergenic potential of most genetically modified foods is uncertain, unpredictable, and not easily tested.”

    Any reader of Nestle’s previous books would quickly recognize her academic style – and have formed their own opinion no doubt – but new readers should be warned.  Nestle expects her audience to come to this book with a significant background on the topic.  If upon hearing ‘GMO’ you are reminded of failed automakers or little green men from Mars, you might want to look elsewhere for a book.

    (Re)visit This Work

    But also realize this book’s high barrier of entry is also what makes it so good.  The more you read it, the more you know you are dealing with one of, if not THE, authority on the subject.  Yes, the prose bends towards the tone of an academic journal at times but if you want to understand the world of food safety, this is the book.

    The exceptional insight into every dimension of this crisis, the balanced view from both sides of each issue and her ability to educate – even entertain – at times, makes this a great read for anybody with a background in health or food.  Therefore, we highly recommend Safe Food as it provides both acumen into the most pressing issues related to food safety as well as a detailed context for understanding the issues (purchase this work on Amazon to support Nutrition Wonderland).

  • Mailbag: Smart Balance versus Butter

    Mailbag: Smart Balance versus Butter

    Question:

    We are having a discussion about whether buttery spread – such as Smart Balance is better than using butter?!?!

    http://www.smartbalance.com/

    what do you think??

    Thank you!!
    Claire from Los Angeles

    ##################

    Smart Balance is not good for you in the relative scheme of things.  It is a chemical conglomeration of esterified oils – which means they take all these different oils, blast them apart, combine them with caking agents which come together to form this new age margarine.  Its WAAAY better than old fashioned margarine, made from trans fat, but still not a natural food.  That stuff about the flaxseed oil helping is really nonsense – processing destroys the bioavailabilty of omega-3s.

    Ideally, you want to eat your essential fats, that is Omega3 and Omega6, in a 1:1 ratio.  Most Americans get about 15-20X more Omega6 than Omega3, precisely because of this processing problem.  Omega3 is very sensitive – it will degrade at room temperature even – and only in a small number of foods (flax, walnuts, wild salmon).  Omega 6 is everywhere and stands up to heat and processing much better…so you can see where this goes.  Smart Balance will have a high Omega6:3 ratio – making it an inflammatory food.

    We would much rather see you eating butter, but realize the type of butter you are eating here is key.  You really want to find butter from grass fed cows.  This type of butter will tend to be a bright yellow orange – the more orange the better.  This is an outward indication the cows feed on grass, which is rich in beta-carrotene – an orange flavonoid that will tint your butter (it will be more orange in the spring, when grass first starts to grow).  This is an unrefined, real food that contains high amounts of omega3 fats along with a dizzying array of vitamins and minerals – all very bioavailable.  Try and find Raw, Grass Fed butter if you can – this is even better for you.

    People lament that butter is high in saturated fats, which have been linked to heart disease.  While this is true, that information is related to a more outdated view of heart disease.  Heart disease is truly an inflammatory disease, not one of cholesterol.  Its when cholesterol gets oxidized that we have problems and eating natural foods decreases inflammation in the body.  Additionally, there is no research to back up the idea that saturated fats even translate into cholesterol in the body – the mechanisms are very very complex and still not fully understood.

    The degree of processing in foods is always an indication of whether or not you should be eating them.  ALWAYS STAY AWAY FROM PROCESSED FOODS!  Ignore whatever the label says – you have no idea how bought and paid for those labels are.  Smart Balance is highly processed; if it was not, the oils would simply separate and youd have something along the lines of salad dressing.  Butter is clearly the winner here.

    ##################

    Follow-up:

    Ok – one more question
    Salted or unsalted butter??  – or is that an obvious one?

    Claire, LA

    ##################

    The salting is important but pretty irrelevant considering how little the amount of salt in your butter will contribute to your overall salt intake.  The big thing to pay attention to in all your food is the quality of inputs – by that I mean, how good was the stuff that went into making it?

    If you buy butter from factory farm cows – who eat crap corn product, it once again creates that high Omega6:Omega3 inflammatory fat ratio, much like Smart Balance.  If you get butter from pasture cows that eat grass and hay like they are supposed to (they have 2 stomachs for a reason!), the nutrient profile increases dramatically.

    This ideology extends into everything you eat.  If you put an organic carrot next to conventionally grown carrot, you probably wont see a difference – but your body will.  Organics come from soil not artificially enriched and not bathed in hormone disrupting pesticides – which is why they are always preferred.

    Of course finding these foods is always hard, not to mention their cost after you have found them.

    For cooking, the most readily available unrefined oil is extra virgin olive oil.  You want to use it in low heat cooking (steaming) because it can oxidize easily due to its monounsaturated fat chemical alignment.  For higher heat cooking (BBQ, Sauté), use raw coconut oil or the grass fed butter – they are saturated fats, which can take heat very well.  Both the oils are readily available if you have trouble finding grass fed butter.

  • 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.