The night before Christmas

VISIONS OF SUPPLEMENTS DANCED IN MY HEAD


“Twas the night before Christmas
When all through the house
The vitamin bottles were plenty and close
There was A for my vision and good healthy skin
Ten thousand units should not do me in.
Cigarettes won’t harm me if I’m full of A
No fear of skin cancer—I’ll sun tan all day.
And vitamin D for good bones, of course
No fear of arthritis—I’m strong as a horse.
Sunshine and milk may give some people D
But the stuff in the bottle’s the potion for me.
Of vitamin E, I can’t get enough
From regular food—it’s not got the right stuff.
I’ll never go bald, will be virile and strong
With vitamin pills I’ll surely live long.
Of vitamin B, what more need I say
These little gems keep me stress-free all day.
Sure, studies may claim that it’s toxic and such
But those dietitians don’t know so much.
And here’s to my favourite, old vitamin C
The fighter of colds, the saviour of me.”

From my musings and dreaming
I woke with a start
To find myself facing
An elf with a cart.
The cart was just loaded
With food of all sorts
Carrots and oranges and milk by the quarts
Cranberries, turkey and even some cream
The elf then approached me as if in a dream.
“What do you want?” I cried with alarm
“Why, nothing , fairy lady, but to save you from harm”.
He picked up my bottle of wonderful pills
And asked if they’d save me from all of my ills.
“If vitamin B can alter your mood,
In the name of St. Nick, why not get it from food?”
Well then I had him—I was sure of my case
“Because, I said wisely, “real food’s just a waste.
It’s lacking in vitamins, minerals and stuff
The soil that it’s grown in is just so much fluff”

Well, he sprang to the table, chuckled “You silly twit—
That’s a load of malarkey, it just doesn’t fit.
The soil your food’s grown in has vitamins, sure.
If from synthetic fertilizers or loads of manure.
When nutrients are lacking the crops just won’t grow
They’re either full of the good stuff
Or they never show.
And not only that, he went on to explain
Those doses you’re taking might even cause pain.
The studies are clear and there’s nary a doubt
The more you take in, the more you’ll put out.
That’s if you’re lucky and don’t take excess
Since extra large doses can wreak quite a mess.

With one wave of his hand the bottles were gone
And food filled the counter as he whistled a song
“Let’s have no more nonsense, he said with a grin
If you’d be well nourished, here’s where to begin:
Veggies and fruits stand you in good stead;
Milk and milk products and whole grains and bread;
Lean meats and chicken and plenty of fish
Good health will be yours if that is your wish.
There’s plenty of science, as clear as yon star,
That those who eat well live longer by far.
Blueberries, strawberries, yogurt and nuts
Are chock-full of good stuff, no ifs ands or buts.
Salmon and mackerel have fun in the sea
Producing those fish oils for you and for me.
From beef we get iron and B 12 and such,
To our animal friends we all owe so much.
Beans and cereals are important for sure
Without these great foods, we’d be healthy no more.

Then laying a finger aside of his nose
The elf disappeared, but what do you s’pose
I heard him exclaim as he vanished from sight?
“Merry Christmas to all and you’d better eat right!”

All juiced up

Juices, both fruit and vegetable, have long been to the diet what scarves and jewelry are to a woman's wardrobe: accessories. Not really necessary, but something to complete or perk up the overall picture. This is unfortunate, although one must admit that there are a few people who view liquid calories as not counting...and are therefore apt to overdo it. Generally though, folks often dismiss the nutrient contribution that juices can make. Even worse, they sometimes relegate juices to the role of 'mixer' as has befallen Clamato juice. Does anyone drink it 'straight' without the helping hand of vodka? There are even people who believe that the sole reason for the existence of pineapple juice is to provide a thirsty world with an unending supply of Pina Coladas.

Grape juice of course, is consumed in vast quantities...but mostly in its fermented form, or jellied up and spread on a peanut butter sandwich. In short, the use and abuse of juice really ought to be examined and with the Christmas season upon us, I thought I'd draw your attention to this oft maligned beverage.

The least underrated of all of the juices would have to be that of the orange. But even our Floridian friend, or California cousin, suffers the squeeze of misunderstanding. While most are aware of the terrific vitamin C content of orange juice, few are aware of the great contribution ti can make to our daily intake of folic acid, pyridoxine and potassium. These as well as many other nutrients are imbibed with a glass of sunshine, a point which seems to be lost on those who feel that a glass of reconstituted orange 'drink' will pack the same nutritional punch. The only significant contribution the 'fakes' make is of vitamin C.

Another standby in the juice department is the tomato, which has been fortunate enough to escape being categorized as a breakfast drink only. Some, of course, wouldn't recognize it without a stalk of celery, but its low calorie content has put it on every dieter's list of dependables. It already contains more than enough sodium so don't add insult to injury by adding salt to it. Nutrient-wise it's another great source of vitamin C and makes a yeoman's donation of vitamin A. Phosphorus, potassium and magnesium are also well represented. Add clams (Clamato) or other vegetables (V8) and you get a variety of other nutrients as well.

For lovers of purple, grape juice is on the rise as a beverage of choice...and not too often sullied as a mixer for alcohol. It isn't a natural source of vitamin C, but most brands have this added. It does contribute a fair amount of potassium and its phenol content plus resveritrol has put it at the top of 'healthy' drinks for a possible role in lowering the risk of heart disease. Pineapple juice carries with it not only visions of swaying palm trees and white sands, but also a bounty of pyridoxine, thiamin, magnesium and copper. And while we're in the tropics why not consider some of the more exotic juices available to us. Though it's true that these are more expensive than the old traditionals, and there transportation uses a lot of fuel, it's also true that they provide nutrition and make a nice occasional treat.

Papaya juice offers vitamin C and vitamin A, a myriad of minerals and just a touch of elitism from knowing that this definitely separates you from the hoi polloi. Mango juice is also very pleasant and, again, a great provider of vitamins A and C. There are also the juices of the guava, pomegranate (currently a favourite of the health-food crowd), apricot nectar, cranberry juice and combinations of the above.

Suffice it to say fruit and vegetable juices can be a good source of nutritious pleasure and can provide a nice change for monotonous snacks. Given today's water-tight containers and assortment of thermoses they can be toted easily. But remember, they aren't great sources of calcium, so shouldn't be thought of as a replacement for milk. You don't need me to tell you that they're an infinitely better choice than a soft drink.

What's so good about leafy greens?

All right, feminists...sit up and take notice: it was a female investigator who discovered an important B vitamin--folacin, or folic acid, which is one of the biologically active forms. Dr. Lucy Wills became intrigued by a specific type of anemia among the pregnant women she was treating in India. Eventually she determined that these ladies were lacking something in their diet and that 'something' was called 'Wills Factor'. Finally the vitamin was extracted from spinach leaves and some clever devil came up with the name folic acid from the Latin 'folium' for leaf. Which is a handy way of remembering one of its excellent sources, if you can't or don't care to remember its best sources, liver and brewer's yeast. Brewers must be very healthy people, not to mention happy.

Time out for a little fun with chemistry. The technical name for folacin is pteroylglutamic acid, or PGA. This means that it's made up of pteroic acid along with one or more molecules of glutamate. I know you're gasping at this information--well hold on, it gets even better. The form that's used in food supplements has one glutamate molecule--a monoglutamate, which is very heat stable but most vulnerable if cooked in an acid solution. Meaning what? Meaning that you shouldn't add lemon juice when you're cooking greens. Another form of pteroic acid is para-amino benzoic acid, fondly referred to as PABA which, for those of you who love summer, will conjure up visions of beaches and sunscreen. PABA was originally thought to be a vitamin but we now know it's useless on the inside...meaning don't drink your sun-screening products.

Absorption of folacin is pretty routine except under certain conditions: amino salicylic acid and cyclosporin (drugs sometimes used in treating tuberculosis), some anticonvulsant medications, and alcohol diminish the level of absorption. As a matter of fact, the type of folacin that's found in food can't be absorbed by chronic alcoholics, forcing them to rely on a synthetic supplement, which I'm sure is high on their list of priorities. When you stop to think about it, there are so many vitamins whose absorption is impeded by alcohol, one can readily envision the day when the I.U.D. (International Union of Dissipators) stages massive protests to demand the vitaminization of booze. I jest, but I have it on good authority that Austrlia already requires the addition of thiamin to alcoholic beverages to ward off a condition (Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome) in alcoholics.

Sex pops up in nutritional discussions as it does in just about everything, and we find that the use of many oral contraceptive pills will lower serum folic acid levels. So guys that would a-courtin' go would be well advised to bring spinach instead of flowers. Pregnancy, which sometimes occurs in people not taking the aforementioned birth-control pill, demands a lot from a woman...especially folic acid. So much so that it is definitely recommended for pregnant women. Even more important is ensuring adequate folic acid intake around the time of conception to reduce the risk of Spina Bifida in the baby. Anyone considering becoming pregnant would be wise to consider a folic acid supplement as well.

Now then, supposing you're not taking any medication, are a teetotaler and your folacin absorption is just fine, thank you very much, what does it do for you once you've got it? Basically it's involved in amino acid metabolism and the synthesis of nucleic acids. If you don't have enough of it, your red blood cell formation suffers. The major symptom or result of folic acid deficiency is megaloblastic anemia in which the red blood cells are very large, but not plentiful. Anyone on a normal, well-balanced diet should have no fear of problems in this area. Other symptoms of folate deficiency include a high frequency of irritability, forgetfulness, hostility and paranoid behavior. Fortunately, in Canada at least, folacin is added to flour and cereals. Be careful, though. Large supplements of folic acid can hide symptoms of pernicious anemia or vitamin B 12 deficiency. Unbeknownst to the supplement taker, this condition could be proceeding dangerously, undetected because of the folic acid. So, as with any other supplement, don't overdo it.

The plot thickens still as research indicates that a low folic acid intake might be responsible for elevated levels of a substance called homocysteine, which may in turn lead to atherosclerosis. As it turns out, it might not be the presence of fat in your diet that's a problem, but rather the absence of fruits and vegetables with their high level of folic acid. So, no matter your sex or age, make sure that you get at least five servings of these foods daily.

How best to define 'natural'

The subject was child abuse. Not a topic one would normally chose to start off a coffee klatch, but nonetheless...topical. One of the more fanatical in the group said that she would charge with child abuse anyone that fed their child sugar...any sugar at all. When asked to expound on the harm likely to befall a child with a moderate amount of sugar in the diet she replied that she didn't know exactly, but it was 'bad' for you and wasn't 'natural'. Another proffered the argument that anyone who didn't follow Canada's Food Guide in the care and feeding of her child was being abusive. Now hold on! The friendly conversation pretty soon disintegrated into a wild argument about the parents' rights to feed a child anything they want (except poison) as long as they don't withhold food from him/her for reasons of punishment or torture.

Coincidentally, I had recently been told that public health nurses were receiving an increasing number of requests for information on vegetarian diets in childhood. Apparently quite a few parents are raising their children in the vegetarian mold and are concerned about the nutritional status of their veggie-munching off-spring. Generally speaking the lacto-ovo vegetarian child is not at special nutritional risk, although iron adequacy is questionable for some. The problem comes when the child is on a strict or 'vegan' diet. On this regimen all animal products including eggs, milk and other dairy products are excluded resulting in the possibility of a deficiency in energy, vitamin D, vitamin B 12, calcium, iron, zinc, and the high-quality protein required for growth.

Among children in vegan families rickets has been observed frequently and dietary intake records have shown marginal intakes of calcium phosphorus and vitamin D in the children. Salt, of course, is not an animal food, but many vegans insist on only sea salt at their table...which is fine, except that this salt isn't iodized and hence the risk of goiter rises. Insufficient intake of the essential amino acids needed for protein synthesis (while achievable when complementary sources of protein are offered), as well as a plain old deficiency in calories can significantly hamper the growth of a child. This information is frequently met with the response that bigger isn't necessarily better. Possibly.

Studies have shown that the breast-fed infants of vegan mothers appear to develop at the average rate (although some have developed severe anemia due to B 12 deficiency when moms were long-term vegans), but lagged behind the growth of omnivorous children when their restricted solids were introduced. Most parents that are 'into' vegetarianism have read up on the subject and feel that they're qualified to judge the adequacy of their child's diet. Up to a point they probably are. The case of calcium and iron, however, is a good example of where they may err. Nutrient composition tables will show that most dark green leafy vegetables are good sources of these minerals. What they don't show is the high content of oxalic acid carried by these veggies. Normally oxalic acid doesn't pose too great a threat. When the diet is low in minerals form other sources, however, the propensity of oxalic acid to combine with these elements to form insoluble, unabsorbable salts becomes a problem.

Similarly, if the diet is very high in unrefined grains and unleavened bread, as is frequently the case (pita, especially whole grain, is very 'in') then the phytic acid contained therein may serve to rob the diet of available calcium and iron, not to mention zinc. Next, consider if you will, the logistical problem of delivering adequate energy to an individual when the vehicle is a high-bulk, low-calorie foodstuff like broccoli and the receptor is the tiny tummy of a four year old, or even 10 year old for that matter. It's just plain difficult to pack enough calories in with low energy foods...as any dieter will tell you. Unfortunately, there has been an increase in the number of adults belonging to groups that advocate extremely restrictive diets and also the avoidance of specific medical services like vaccinations. Concern for their children is increasing as well.

Soy what's new?

There's been a lot of buzz about soy products like tofu, tofurkey, soy juice and the like. Is all the ballyhoo warranted...and just what can these foods do for us that other, more traditional western foods can't? To begin with, let's get the terminology right. The juice or liquid expressed from soy beans, although often referred to as soy 'milk' is of course, not milk at all. As the old joke goes: "Did you ever try to milk a soy bean? The notion of this juice being 'milk' is largely promoted on the basis that it doesn't contain animal fat or lactose,it's of plant origin, and it contains components such as phytoestrogens that are suggested to be beneficial to health. But how does the juice compare to cow's milk in terms of its nutrient content?

Let's start with the protein. Raw soy bean contains a substance that keeps its protein from being digested in the human body...but in processing this substance is removed and we end up with a protein of relatively high quality. 'Relatively' is the key word here because the profile of essential amino acids (the building blocks of protein) still doesn't match the high quality of animal protein. The term 'high quality' refers to the amount and balance of essential amino acids in the protein under question and while the actual amount of protein in soy is impressive, the balance of its amino acids is off the mark. This isn't usually a serious problem, however, since in cultures where soy is routinely eaten, dietary patterns have developed whereby the amino acid picture is completed by other protein foods in the diet. What it's lacking specifically is sufficient quantity of sulfur-containing amino acids.

Well then, how about soy's calcium content? Soy is actually quite low in calcium, but some of the tofus (soy bean cakes) are 'set' with calcium, and many of the soy beverages have calcium added as well. Unfortunately, soy contains phytic acid, a substance that hampers the body's absorption of several minerals including iron, zinc and calcium. Because of these mineral problems there has been some concern expressed about the calcium status of children raised on soy-based drinks and the impact on bone health. In addition, some of the calcium added to the soy drinks remains as 'sludge' in the bottom of the container.

One of the popular uses of soy products has been as a way of avoiding milk protein allergy. As it turns out, research has shown that a lot of babies who develop an allergy to cow's milk proteins will also be allergic to soy-based formulas. For such infants...in fact for all infants...breast feeding is the best choice, but when that is not possible and milk/soy allergy is a concern, the only reliable alternative formulas are ones based on fully hydrolysed milk protein.

And then we have the potential role of soy foods in dealing with certain symptoms of menopause. Anything's possible, but right now the jury's still out...largely because the alleged active ingredients of soy (isoflavones) are so greatly reduced in being transformed into tofu and soy beverage. On a different topic concerning soy foods, it's often claimed that consumption of these products will lower serum cholesterol levels, but this has only been seen in people who had very high cholesterol levels to begin with.

In a nutshell then, soy foods are obviously nutritious; many cultures have thrived on them. These cultures, however, have a different set of genes and different food patterns than the typical westerner. Whether they can deliver the same nutritional wallop we've come to expect in our traditional diet remains to be seen.

Irish Stew

I've been stewing over something since the book 'Angela's Ashes' became so popular quite a few years ago. My problem is this: if Frank McCourt (the author) was so badly nourished as a child, how did he grow into such an intelligent, literate man? I mean, every nutrition text book will tell you that if a child is poorly fed, then his mental and physical development will be seriously impaired...the worse the diet, the greater the impairment. To hear McCourt tell it (or read McCourt write it) his childhood subsistence diet consisted mostly of tea and bread with some potatoes thrown in if he was lucky. So I'm thinking it was the potatoes that did the trick.

For openers, let's consider the potato's nutrient content. While some people have swallowed the myth that once a potato is peeled it loses all its nutrients, it is true that the more they're aggravated (chopped up, drowned, over-cooked, boiled in oil and bludgeoned) the fewer B vitamins and vitamin C they'll deliver. Baking in their jackets preserves more nutrients, but for people who hate the skins, nude potatoes still pack a nutritional wallop if the peel is only removed after cooking. In any discussion of dietary potassium, you know who gets all the glory...bananas and oranges. Not a word about the potato (or milk either, for that matter), which contains more potassium than either of those foods, and is a good source of magnmesium and phosphorus with almost no sodium. From a nutritional point of view the worst cooking offence is to cut them up into small pieces, drown them in water and cook for an excessively long period of time. The next greatest offence is to under-value the importance of the spud. Other sources of carbohydrate or starch have recently tried to push the potato off the dinner plate; big mistake. Compared to potatoes, white rice and white pasta are definitely small potatoes. The sweet potato is an even bigger winner, nutritionally speaking, but that's for another day.

Meanwhile, back at Angela's Ashes (and I hear that Mr. McCourt is not currently enjoying good health) a plate of Irish stew along with some whole grain bread and a glass of milk will not only cover the four food groups, it's the essence of comfort food. As winter has us in its icy grip, a little comfort is what we need right now. If you have a slow cooker you can put all the stew's ingredients in it in the morning, and come dinner time, after doing battle with the crowds out Christmas shopping there will be a big batch of comfort. Gourmet dining might be fun and exciting, but for down-to-earth nutrition nothing works better than simply prepared foods of years gone by. Remember that good nutrition depends on a balanced diet with lots of variety...nutrients delivered by real food, not supplements.

Fat is not a four-letter word

With all that's been written about fat and how to lose it, as well as why to lose it, very little attention has been given to the attitudes of society toward people who have fat to spare...and to lose. Most everyone will say that the chief, if not the only, good reason for losing fat is to safeguard one's health, but the bottom line is that 99.9 percent of over-fat people want to shed their excess baggage because of image. They just want to look good--or better. Not only do they want to look good for their own self-esteem, but also because of the knowledge that excess fat puts them at a distinct disadvantage in their personal and professional lives. Given that all health professionals would like to see everyone at their 'healthy' weight, the fact is that for many this remains an elusive goal...especially with the holiday season upon us. How does this 'failure to lose' affect them and the attitudes of those with whom they live and work?

A potential health hazard for many over-fat people, but one that isn't well studied, results from the discrimination, prejudice and exploitation they often experience. For example, some health professionals might be inclined, even subconsciously, to disparage their overweight clients, seeing their failure to slim down as a sign of unwillingness to cooperate with recommendations intended for their own good. To the extent that obese people are stigmatized as 'bad' or 'uncooperative' patients, unsympathetic treatment could result in less than optimum health care.

Overweight people can encounter prejudice in employment and school admissions.One study has shown that an excessively fat person is seen as a less desirable employee...even if he or she is acknowledged to have the same ability as a person of normal or average body fat. Women seem to be slightly more vulnerable to this kind of discrimination than men. Negative attitudes toward the obese are very commonly expressed, but are almost never met with the same kind of outrage or indignation that would greet a racial or sexist slur. This most definitely can play on a person's own self image; in fact, would-be fat losers often refer to a dietary lapse with the phrase "I was bad", as though food choices somehow reflect their moral worth.

One can quibble over the semantics of fatness as an illness, a condition, a disease, an addiction. No matter the cause--hormonal, metabolic, excessive consumption--I doubt anyone wakes up one day with the thought "Gee, I'd like to be fat". While they're doing their level best to slim down, let the rest of us lighten up.

What you see and what you get

A while back I attended a meeting of a very prestigious Canadian nutrition organization and when lunch was served I noted that the only beverages offered (other than tea and coffee) were juice and water. I noted it simply because breakfast had also been a milkless affair and one of the two food groups that Canadians routinely under-consume is the milk/milk product group...small wonder when even a nutrition organization doesn't include it in its menus. Anyway, having had my quota of fruit juice for the day, I opted for the bottled water thinking as I did, how amazed my young-dietitian self would have been to be told that someday people would actually pay for water in a bottle. Never mind how trendy and cool it would be to be seen carrying the stuff around in all manner of places.

So, you can imagine my surprise when, on lifting the glass to my lips, I discover I'm not drinking water at all...I'm drinking pop! I quickly check the ingredient list and sure enough there it is, all the regular stuff that's in regular pop (soda to those south of the border). You know: carbonated water, various forms of sugar, sodium benzoate, citric acid...the usual. So how was I fooled into thinking it was water? As far as I can tell, by one way only: the shape of the bottle. It looked like the bottles that the fizzy waters come in and I hadn't checked the label for the actual name of the product. So I quickly looked to see how this particular beverage was identified, mindful of the fact that a can of cola doesn't actually say 'pop' or 'soda' on the label...some products need no introduction. But this stuff did identify itself...it was a (are you ready?) sparkling 'refresher'.

What a relief to parents who might feel guilty about giving their kids pop with meals instead of milk or juice. They're not...they're giving them a 'refresher'. What a con! And speaking of con jobs, the same nutritional slight-of-hand is occurring as I mentioned yesterday, when the term 'vegetable oil shortening' is used instead of 'hydrogenated vegetable oil'.

Speaking of beverages reminds me of the time, way back when, a Minister of Agriculture declared that Canadians should stop relying on orange juice for their vitamin C and get it instead from Canadian grape juice instead. Great move, especially if a large proportion of one's constituency is in the southern Ontario grape belt, but a tad off the mark. Grape juice has virtually no vitamin C, unless the bottler decides to add it, but at the time I had no end of clients telling me that they were getting their vitamin C from grapes because of what the Minister had said.

It's hard to know what to believe about nutrition these days. When in doubt, read the label...then ask a registered dietitian.

Hidden facts and hidden meanings

I have frequently cautioned people about misleading terminology on ingredient labels, citing as an example the use of the term 'vegetable oil shortening' instead of 'hydrogenated vegetable oil'. The problem is that the process that gives us shortening (or hydrogenated oil) also produces trans fatty acids (I do know that trans should be italicized, but when I click on the icon for italics what appears is ; being a techno-dope, I have no idea what this means)...so please assume that whenever you see the word 'trans', it's in italics! The problem with trans fatty acids, as I'm sure you've read elsewhere, is that they cause an increase in the 'bad' cholesterol (LDL cholesterol) and a decrease in the 'good' cholesterol (HDL). This is a double-whammy effect that spells trouble for the heart.

Shortenings and hard margarines (even some soft ones) are made the same way: hydrogen molecules are added to liquid oils in order to change them into semi-solids. They're partially hydrogenated because if they were fully hydrogenated they'd be as hard as bullets. Partially hydrogenated oils like margarine and shortening were once considered desirable because they have a consistency like butter, yet contain few saturated fatty acids. In addition, they keep longer than liquid oils (which are more readily oxidized and develop rancidity) and add texture to baked goods. In fact, for many people, the biggest source of trans fatty acids has been cakes, cookies and crackers made with margarine or shortening. Trans fatty acids are also present in french fries, fish sticks and deep-fried foods. Now we have labels that will identify the trans fat content of foods bought in the supermarket, but in a restaurant, you're pretty much on your own.

So what's the problem? The problem is that we're wallowing in trans fatty acids--not just the margarine and shortening you use in your own cooking and baking, but the stuff that you eat in restaurants. If you look in your cupboard and check the ingredient list on your crackers and cookies, except for the ones that brag 'no trans fats', I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts (another source of trans fatty acids) that the second ingredient is vegetable oil shortening, or hydrogenated vegetable oil. Adding insult to injury, in cases where the trans fats have been taken out, they've been replaced with high omega-6 vegetable oils.

Next time you're in a mall at a food kiosk, have a look at what's on people's trays. Nine times out of ten, there'll be something deep-fried: chicken, pastries, french fries and the like. There's nothing wrong with the occasional consumption of these foods, but many people have them on a daily basis and, irony of ironies, the beverage that accompanies them is usually a diet drink.

On a related issue I recently came across another bit of nutritional chicanery. Picking up a box of ready-to-eat cereal (just add water), I glanced, as I normally do, at the ingredient list. Right after 'organic oat flakes' came organic 'unrefined evaporated cane juice'. Now what do you suppose evaporated cane juice is? Near as I can figure, it must be sugar. They just don't want to call it that. Leaving aside my feelings about so-called organic packaged goods, I find it offensive in the extreme that a manufacturer should try and disguise what's in their product. There's nothing wrong with a bit of sugar added to a food to make it taste better; plain old oats just don't go down that easily. But for goodness sake, let's call it what it is. Just call a spade a spade!

Let the buyer beware

Probably the first person to use the term "caveat emptor" was a salesman on "Honest Flavius' Used Chariot Lot" in response to some poor schlemiel standing there with a broken axle from his chariot. P.T. Barnum, of course, gave the definitive summation of the situation with "There's a sucker born every minute...and two to take him". Now don't get me wrong. This isn't going to be another tirade against hucksters. I'm as capitalistic as the next person and applaud everyone's right to make a quick buck, or a quick multi-million bucks as is the case with the founders of many get-slim-quick schemes. I also applaud people's right to know the truth, especially when that truth affects both their health and their pocketbook. Having been apprised of the facts, they can then do what they jolly well like.

The author Rebecca West once said "It unfortunately happens that the troubled times which produce an appetite for new ideas are the least propitious for clear thinking". Right on, Rebecca...and you should see some of the fuzzy thinking that today's appetite for super nutrition is producing. I find it hard to believe that one would need specialized training as a dietitian to be doubled up with laughter at some of the claims being made for disease prevention via special foods or potions. Of course, dietitians are becoming so weary of discussing the latest nutrition fad that their senses of humour are being stretched a tad thin. An occupational hazard, I suppose.

Time and space won't permit me to list all the funnies but I'll try and cover a few of the best. For openers, how about the phrase used in promoting many products: "The amazing magic of natural...(you name it)". Magic, as we know, involves trickery, slight of hand, and the art of illusion. If you believe in magic, I have some great swamp land in Florida...full of all kinds of natural stuff.

Many of the manufacturers of 'nutrition' products claim that their product will 'cleanse the system'. It's amazing to me that so many systems are in need of 'cleansing'...people seem obsessed with the notion of ridding their bodies of alleged poisons. Cleansing their wallets may be more to the point. Not quite so funny, but nonetheless misleading, are advertisements for calcium supplements. Granted, if there are no milk or milk products in your diet, then calcium tablets will definitely help fill the calcium gap. The deceit comes with the notion that calcium alone, or even calcium plus vitamin D are all that are needed to avoid osteoporosis. This, unfortunately, is not the case. Calcium can't do it alone...aside from the fact that susceptibility to the brittle bone disease depends a lot on the wisdom you used in choosing your parents. In other words, genetics has a lot to do with one's vulnerability. Other than that, and aside from the need to participate in bone-strengthening activity, there are many nutrients that contribute to bone health...and they all just happen to be found in milk and milk products. Nutrients like protein, magnesium, biotin and vitamin K.

Another bit of hilarity struck me one evening in a hotel room. Having arrived without dinner and not wanting to have a heavy meal just before bed-time, I looked at the mini-bar as it promised "healthy cookies". The cookie in question was oatmeal and raisin (everybody knows how healthful such a cookie must be). Well, this particular offering came in at 420 calories for just one cookie. True, it was a big cookie, but 420 calories for one sweet seemed too rich for me...I went to bed hungry.

And on the subject of misleading advertising, can someone please explain to me how the cosmetic industry can get away with such outlandish claims? Though their advertising is full of such weasel words as "may" and "might", they very often claim that "research has shown a 75 percent reduced perception of fine lines". What a crock! Caveat emptor indeed.

Stewing over raw food

STEWING OVER RAW FOOD


Having put in 45 years as a dietitian, I figured I had seen it all in terms of wacko diets. There was the cabbage soup diet (cabbage soup three times a day), the grapefruit diet (grapefruit with every meal--even grapefruit pills), the Beverly Hills Diet (a mixture of many bizarre concoctions), the purge diet (maple syrup, cayenne papper and water for 10 days; still making the rounds). Then there was the fruitarian diet--more of a movement or life-style than a diet. The rationale was that it was wrong to pull vegetables from their roots and the fact that fruit fell from trees into our hands was nature’s way of letting us know what we should eat. The example most commonly cited to convince the skeptical was that giraffes only eat the leaves of trees and look how healthy giraffes are! Go figure.

The latest insult to the intellect re diet and health is the raw food diet. Proponents of this ‘movement’ argue that heating foods results in the destruction of enzymes in the food and that these enzymes are necessary for digestion. This is pure poppycock. In the first place the stomach produces the enzymes necessary for digestion--it has no need for help from the food itself, thank you very much. Furthermore, any enzymes present in food are in fact destroyed by acids in the stomach. Okay then, how about the argument that heat destroys vitamins? Here we do find a kernel of truth. Some vitamins, C for example, are partially destroyed by heat; and the water-soluble vitamins are vulnerable to loss when cooked in excessive amounts of water. Thus the standard advice to cook vegetables in small amounts of water just until they’re tender, not mushy. Steaming and micro-waving are good cooking methods, but so is boiling as long as you don’t drown the food. One of the most common mistakes I see regarding boiled potatoes is the tendency to cover them in water…and to put the potatoes in before the water has started to boil.

Then, of course, there’s the flip side of the argument: some foods are rendered a better source of some nutrients by virtue of being cooked. Beta-carotene is a prime example. Carrots are known to be a great source of this nutrient and many people believe that raw is best. Not so. In fact, cooked carrots deliver more beta-carotene than uncooked. It’s probably because the cooking process breaks down the plant cells so that the nutrient is more available for absorption. We’re talking nanograms more of the nutrient, but the argument in favour of cooking is still valid. The same is true for lycopene in tomatoes and a little-heralded antioxidant called ferulic acid found in foods like corn and oats. I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t eat and enjoy raw carrots and tomatoes, I’m just pointing out that sometimes what is generally believed to be true about nutrition just ain’t so.

The down-side of eating raw food is that it misses out on the sterilization that cooking provides. Harmful bacteria are naturally found on many foods, including fruits and vegetables. They’re even found on ones considered to be ‘health’ foods, like alfalfa sprouts. In addition, cooking breaks down protein which helps us to digest it and renders some foods--like kidney beans--non toxic.

All in all, the notion that raw food is superior is an idea cooked up by some very mouldy thinking. Don’t swallow it.
STEWING OVER RAW FOOD


Having put in 45 years as a dietitian, I figured I had seen it all in terms of wacko diets. There was the cabbage soup diet (cabbage soup three times a day), the grapefruit diet (grapefruit with every meal--even grapefruit pills), the Beverly Hills Diet (a mixture of many bizarre concoctions), the purge diet (maple syrup, cayenne papper and water for 10 days; still making the rounds). Then there was the fruitarian diet--more of a movement or life-style than a diet. The rationale was that it was wrong to pull vegetables from their roots and the fact that fruit fell from trees into our hands was nature’s way of letting us know what we should eat. The example most commonly cited to convince the skeptical was that giraffes only eat the leaves of trees and look how healthy giraffes are! Go figure.

The latest insult to the intellect re diet and health is the raw food diet. Proponents of this ‘movement’ argue that heating foods results in the destruction of enzymes in the food and that these enzymes are necessary for digestion. This is pure poppycock. In the first place the stomach produces the enzymes necessary for digestion--it has no need for help from the food itself, thank you very much. Furthermore, any enzymes present in food are in fact destroyed by acids in the stomach. Okay then, how about the argument that heat destroys vitamins? Here we do find a kernel of truth. Some vitamins, C for example, are partially destroyed by heat; and the water-soluble vitamins are vulnerable to loss when cooked in excessive amounts of water. Thus the standard advice to cook vegetables in small amounts of water just until they’re tender, not mushy. Steaming and micro-waving are good cooking methods, but so is boiling as long as you don’t drown the food. One of the most common mistakes I see regarding boiled potatoes is the tendency to cover them in water…and to put the potatoes in before the water has started to boil.

Then, of course, there’s the flip side of the argument: some foods are rendered a better source of some nutrients by virtue of being cooked. Beta-carotene is a prime example. Carrots are known to be a great source of this nutrient and many people believe that raw is best. Not so. In fact, cooked carrots deliver more beta-carotene than uncooked. It’s probably because the cooking process breaks down the plant cells so that the nutrient is more available for absorption. We’re talking nanograms more of the nutrient, but the argument in favour of cooking is still valid. The same is true for lycopene in tomatoes and a little-heralded antioxidant called ferulic acid found in foods like corn and oats. I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t eat and enjoy raw carrots and tomatoes, I’m just pointing out that sometimes what is generally believed to be true about nutrition just ain’t so.

The down-side of eating raw food is that it misses out on the sterilization that cooking provides. Harmful bacteria are naturally found on many foods, including fruits and vegetables. They’re even found on ones considered to be ‘health’ foods, like alfalfa sprouts. In addition, cooking breaks down protein which helps us to digest it and renders some foods--like kidney beans--non toxic.

All in all, the notion that raw food is superior is an idea cooked up by some very mouldy thinking. Don’t swallow it.
STEWING OVER RAW FOOD


Having put in 45 years as a dietitian, I figured I had seen it all in terms of wacko diets. There was the cabbage soup diet (cabbage soup three times a day), the grapefruit diet (grapefruit with every meal--even grapefruit pills), the Beverly Hills Diet (a mixture of many bizarre concoctions), the purge diet (maple syrup, cayenne papper and water for 10 days; still making the rounds). Then there was the fruitarian diet--more of a movement or life-style than a diet. The rationale was that it was wrong to pull vegetables from their roots and the fact that fruit fell from trees into our hands was nature’s way of letting us know what we should eat. The example most commonly cited to convince the skeptical was that giraffes only eat the leaves of trees and look how healthy giraffes are! Go figure.

The latest insult to the intellect re diet and health is the raw food diet. Proponents of this ‘movement’ argue that heating foods results in the destruction of enzymes in the food and that these enzymes are necessary for digestion. This is pure poppycock. In the first place the stomach produces the enzymes necessary for digestion--it has no need for help from the food itself, thank you very much. Furthermore, any enzymes present in food are in fact destroyed by acids in the stomach. Okay then, how about the argument that heat destroys vitamins? Here we do find a kernel of truth. Some vitamins, C for example, are partially destroyed by heat; and the water-soluble vitamins are vulnerable to loss when cooked in excessive amounts of water. Thus the standard advice to cook vegetables in small amounts of water just until they’re tender, not mushy. Steaming and micro-waving are good cooking methods, but so is boiling as long as you don’t drown the food. One of the most common mistakes I see regarding boiled potatoes is the tendency to cover them in water…and to put the potatoes in before the water has started to boil.

Then, of course, there’s the flip side of the argument: some foods are rendered a better source of some nutrients by virtue of being cooked. Beta-carotene is a prime example. Carrots are known to be a great source of this nutrient and many people believe that raw is best. Not so. In fact, cooked carrots deliver more beta-carotene than uncooked. It’s probably because the cooking process breaks down the plant cells so that the nutrient is more available for absorption. We’re talking nanograms more of the nutrient, but the argument in favour of cooking is still valid. The same is true for lycopene in tomatoes and a little-heralded antioxidant called ferulic acid found in foods like corn and oats. I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t eat and enjoy raw carrots and tomatoes, I’m just pointing out that sometimes what is generally believed to be true about nutrition just ain’t so.

The down-side of eating raw food is that it misses out on the sterilization that cooking provides. Harmful bacteria are naturally found on many foods, including fruits and vegetables. They’re even found on ones considered to be ‘health’ foods, like alfalfa sprouts. In addition, cooking breaks down protein which helps us to digest it and renders some foods--like kidney beans--non toxic.

All in all, the notion that raw food is superior is an idea cooked up by some very mouldy thinking. Don’t swallow it.
STEWING OVER RAW FOOD


Having put in 45 years as a dietitian, I figured I had seen it all in terms of wacko diets. There was the cabbage soup diet (cabbage soup three times a day), the grapefruit diet (grapefruit with every meal--even grapefruit pills), the Beverly Hills Diet (a mixture of many bizarre concoctions), the purge diet (maple syrup, cayenne papper and water for 10 days; still making the rounds). Then there was the fruitarian diet--more of a movement or life-style than a diet. The rationale was that it was wrong to pull vegetables from their roots and the fact that fruit fell from trees into our hands was nature’s way of letting us know what we should eat. The example most commonly cited to convince the skeptical was that giraffes only eat the leaves of trees and look how healthy giraffes are! Go figure.

The latest insult to the intellect re diet and health is the raw food diet. Proponents of this ‘movement’ argue that heating foods results in the destruction of enzymes in the food and that these enzymes are necessary for digestion. This is pure poppycock. In the first place the stomach produces the enzymes necessary for digestion--it has no need for help from the food itself, thank you very much. Furthermore, any enzymes present in food are in fact destroyed by acids in the stomach. Okay then, how about the argument that heat destroys vitamins? Here we do find a kernel of truth. Some vitamins, C for example, are partially destroyed by heat; and the water-soluble vitamins are vulnerable to loss when cooked in excessive amounts of water. Thus the standard advice to cook vegetables in small amounts of water just until they’re tender, not mushy. Steaming and micro-waving are good cooking methods, but so is boiling as long as you don’t drown the food. One of the most common mistakes I see regarding boiled potatoes is the tendency to cover them in water…and to put the potatoes in before the water has started to boil.

Then, of course, there’s the flip side of the argument: some foods are rendered a better source of some nutrients by virtue of being cooked. Beta-carotene is a prime example. Carrots are known to be a great source of this nutrient and many people believe that raw is best. Not so. In fact, cooked carrots deliver more beta-carotene than uncooked. It’s probably because the cooking process breaks down the plant cells so that the nutrient is more available for absorption. We’re talking nanograms more of the nutrient, but the argument in favour of cooking is still valid. The same is true for lycopene in tomatoes and a little-heralded antioxidant called ferulic acid found in foods like corn and oats. I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t eat and enjoy raw carrots and tomatoes, I’m just pointing out that sometimes what is generally believed to be true about nutrition just ain’t so.

The down-side of eating raw food is that it misses out on the sterilization that cooking provides. Harmful bacteria are naturally found on many foods, including fruits and vegetables. They’re even found on ones considered to be ‘health’ foods, like alfalfa sprouts. In addition, cooking breaks down protein which helps us to digest it and renders some foods--like kidney beans--non toxic.

All in all, the notion that raw food is superior is an idea cooked up by some very mouldy thinking. Don’t swallow it.

Store-bought food

It seems a little strange that people need to be reminded that regular grocery stores provide healthy, nutritious food. The scare-mongers have done a fair job of making people nervous about their food choices...so now is as good a time as any to air some of the food fears that plague the nation.

First a look at food safety--a broad and complicated subject which covers things like microbial issues, chemical additives, allergens, and contamination. While the bottom line is that Canadians enjoy one of the safest food supplies in the world, little worries still exist in the minds of some. Not surprising given recent outbreaks of e.coli and salmonella from such innocuous seeming foods as spinach and apple juice. Meat can also be one of the causes of worry, particularly regarding the use of hormones. Are they safe--and why use them in the first place? Well, they're used (in some instances) because they promote faster, more efficient animal growth. This cuts costs (saving significant dollars for the consumer) and also results in a leaner animal, which is nice for the calorie conscious. The growth hormones currently used in Canada have been declared safe by three major independent international scientific groups including the World Health Organization committee on feed additives. Perhaps more to the point is the fact that the residues of these compounds have been shown to be so minimal that they are of no toxicological significance in meat. To put this into perspective, children produce within their own bodies 400-500times daily, the level of hormones they might consume in a 1/2 pound steak. In addition, many other foods, like cabbage, peas, soybeans, and beer naturally contain steroids which people have been consuming without harmful effects.

O.K. then, how about produce safety? Here's a good case of nutrition terrorists versus common sense. For reasons that had nothing to do with good science or good health, the apple-growth regulator Alar was removed from the market many years ago. After Phil Donahue took his axe to the Alar tree and 'nutrition expert' Meryl Streep (who is still taking up questionable food causes) encouraged mothers to throw anything that smacked of apples down the drain, what was the public to think? It was left to think that our present day food supply is filling our bellies with dreaded toxins. One of the chief concerns is pesticides/herbicides--substances with many benefits which are often cloaked under a fear of perceived risk. The benefit is food that is free from pests, molds and fungus...the risk is minuscule. Waxes are another bug-bear for consumers. In fact, only a few varieties of produce are treated with waxes (which are safe) and this is done to prevent loss of moisture and nutrients. It also makes the product look appetizing which annoys those who feel that attractive food just isn't natural!

And speaking of natural, we come to another area of consumer concerns--the 'organic', 'health' and 'natural' food issue. A lot of the problem has to do with semantics. Words just don't mean as much as they used to and promotion of the 'natural' concept can really make hay out of this fact. Take the word 'organic'. Aside from the little fact that the important nutrients a plant takes out of the soil are in fact 'inorganic', the word itself conveys very little. Heck, today we hear Hollywood actors claiming they were attracted to a particular script because it was so "organic". But I digress. The generally agreed-upon definition of organic food is food which is grown without the use of synthetic pesticides and herbicides. But definitions vary when one examines how long the land has been pesticide free and what substances can or cannot be used.

The term 'organic' is itself seductive--and unfortunately people often believe that an 'organic' product is nutritionally superior to one which is not. This is simply not true. There may be an emotional need on the part of some to pay extra money for what they consider 'pure' food. If one must buy 'organic', then the label should at least say 'certified organic'. It still won't mean much, but it at least won't be a philosophical rip-off. The road to healthy eating isn't the mine-field that some would make it. Just make sure that most of the time you're choosing wisely and nutritiously; the other 5-10 percent of the time: let 'er rip!

Tid bits; this and that

The following are either some thoughts I've had, or quotes from famous people (where applicable, and the source is known, the quotes will be attributed to the originators).

Smokers sometimes weigh less than their weed-free friends, but they tend to have bigger bellies. This is not a good thing...not just if they want to be a centerfold, but especially if they'd like to reduce their risk of things like high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease. Check your waist to hip ratio. If it's greater than 1 for men or 0.8 for women, then lose that tire and quit smoking.

From G.K. Chesterton: Gluttony is a great fault, but we don't necessarily dislike a glutton. We only dislike a glutton when he/she becomes a 'gourmet'...that is, we only dislike them when they not only want the best for themselves, but know what is best for other people.

Sedentary living, not cholesterol, is most likely the villain when it comes to heart disease. That, plus hydrogenated vegetable oils!

Since laughter is probably the best medicine, put on a happy face. It shouldn't be too difficult to find something to laugh about every day. Forget the chocolates when you visit a sick friend, bring them a funny book or DVD.

The next time a friend offers you some of his hunting-season bounty, think twice before turning up your nose. Wild game usually has less fat than the domesticated variety but is equal in nutritional value. Wild turkeys, however, are usually pretty tough.

From Emile Souvester: The stomach is a slave that must accept everything that is given to it, but which avenges wrongs as slyly as does the slave.

Sometimes the stomach turns the tables and becomes the master.

Symptoms of a heart attack:
* Uncomfortable pressure, fullness, squeezing or pain in the centre of the chest for more than two minutes.
* Pain may spread to the shoulders, neck or arms.
* Severe pain, dizziness, fainting, sweating, nausea, or shortness of breath may occur.
* These signals aren't always present. Symptoms may subside and then return.
If you experience any of these symptoms call an ambulance or have someone drive you to the hospital immediately. The ambulance is a better bet, since they have life-saving equipment on board.

Symptoms of a stroke:
If you suspect that you, a loved one or friend is having a stroke, ask them (or have yourself) perform three tasks: smile; utter a complete sentence; raise both arms above your head. If any of the tasks can't be completed it's time for an ambulance.

White pasta is the nutritional equivalent of white bread. Chose whole wheat when you can. While some are reluctant at first, the majority of those who try whole wheat pasta are won over by it's 'nutty' flavour.

From Stephen Phillips: In the Middle Ages they had guillotines, stretch racks, whips and chains. Nowadays we have a much more effective torture device called the bathroom scale.

From Arnold Glasgow: Your body is the baggage you must carry through life. The more excess baggage, the shorter the trip.

Finally, from W.C. Fields: Once, during Prohibition, I was forced to live for days on nothing but food and water.

Foods that keep you fit

The title might be a bit misleading...this isn't a blog that will tell you which foods will get you running a six-minute mile. Rather, the 'fit' refers to 'well'-as in what foods will give you the best fighting chance to help your body keep on ticking. Bearing in mind then that we don't have absolute proof of any food/disease-prevention connection, here is a run-down of some possibilities:

Broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower and cabbage are cruciferous (their leaves are in a cross-shaped formation) vegetables; all are members of the Brassica family. As such, they contain three biggies in the chemical department: indoles, dithiolthiones, and isothiocyanates--which may not be easy to say, but should be easy to swallow. Research has indicated they might be protective against breast cancer and perhaps colon cancer.

Milk (and milk products), along with many nutritional benefits, is one of our most potent suppliers of calcium--important for reducing the risk of osteoporosis. This probably isn't news to you, but you might be surprised to learn there's a large body of research indicating that milk might offer protection against colon cancer. Fermented milk products (yogurt, buttermilk and fermented cheeses) get even higher anti-cancer points in some studies. A separate consideration is that fortified milk is an excellent source of vitamin D, a vitamin that has been cited by experts as 'the biggest single factor associated with breast cancer and colon cancer'. At a time when people are using sunblocks and/or avoiding the sun, consumption of fortified milk is especially important, as is the taking of a vitamin D supplement.

Fatty fish. There's been no end of claims for the benefits of a substance found in the oil of fish like tuna, salmon, mackerel, herring and sardines. Both eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) and docoshexanoic acid (DHA) are found in fish oil and have been shown to reduce serum triglycerides (a type of fat in the blood), reduce platelet clumping (a beginning process in the development of the dirty sludge or plaque that can clog up arteries) and possibly even bring down elevated blood pressure.

Fruits and vegetables. These are great for a whole lot of reasons, but for now we'll focus on just two. First off, most fruits and vegetables (along with milk) are terrific sources of potassium (potatoes, bananas and oranges are the first that come to mind), and the big brains in the nutrition business are pretty much convinced that a diet that's routinely low in potassium predisposes one to high blood pressure... (this is not to suggest that low potassium, along with low calcium and low magnesium are the CAUSE of high blood pressure; the cause is unknown although many in the field lay the blame at the foot of a high sodium intake. Even the sodium-as-villain scenario could be based in the relative intake of sodium compared to the three minerals just mentioned). The second point about fruits and veggies really applies only to those that are deep orange, deep green or deep red in colour--ones like apricots, peaches, broccoli, spinach, sweet potatoes, cantaloupe. These are loaded with beta-carotene--an antioxidant with quite a reputation for cancer prevention. If I were stranded on a desert island and could pick only one plant food, I'd have to go with the sweet potato. Best by a country mile for most vitamins and minerals that plants can provide.

Meat. While meat hasn't been credited with any particular disease-fighting trait, it does a great job of supplying protein and keeping you alive. It's also just about the best source of two extremely important minerals: iron and zinc. The fit set should pay particular heed. While most dietitians/nutritionists would argue in favour of LEAN meat, I feel compelled to point out that the fat of ruminant animals (cows, sheep, goats--anything that chews its cud) is an excellent source of a substance called conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) that has been shown to be ant-carcinogenic and possibly anti-atherogenic. Ruminant fats also include the fat from dairy products...cream, butter, whole milk, full-fat cheese.

Berries. What can I say that you haven't already read about? Blueberries, blackberries, raspberries, strawberries...they're all getting a lot of attention because they are great sources of many antioxidants. Plus, they're very low in calories. Dig in!

Nuts. Ditto to what I've said about berries (except the'dig in' part). I'm sure you're all aware of how good nuts are for you, but do remember that they pack a huge wallop calorically speaking.

Beans. Last but certainly not least, the lowly bean which, thanks to its water-soluble fibre similar to that found in oat-bran, has been shown to be helpful in lowering serum cholesterol levels. Any legumey bean will do: kidney beans, chick peas, lima beans, lentils...even canned pork and beans. If you can find the pork, you can eat it!

The whole juice; nothing but the juice

Alright, so the fondue pot, the yogurt maker, the pasta machine have gone the way of most kitchen gadget fads--to garage sale heaven. What you really need now, especially if you're "into" health, is a juice machine. A touch of arthritis, a little chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia, worried about the old immune system? If that's what's troubling you, chum, then the latest dietary magic (after a slew of supplements) might be as close as your garden or, now that gardening season is done in the north, your local green grocer. The trick, according to the hope-hucksters promoting juice machines, is to get a combination of concentrated goodness in the most efficient way, by removing all that annoying pulp.

The raw foods movement is a big promoter of juicing with claims of all sorts, especially about cancer cures. Those exploiting juicemania are either selling books on the subject or juice machines and the latter in particular are perking up flagging sales in culinary/health shops during this time of recession. Juice has become a verb; extracting it has become an almost religious ritual. Testimonials pour in from people who "feel better than we have in years" (a comment that usually follows ingestion of various elixirs from blue-green algae to bee pollen), and are now better able to cope with stress, concern with the environment, and visiting in-laws!

Most "authorities" on the subject, i.e. the guys selling the machines and the books, recommend an intake of six glasses of juice per day. For a family consisting of two parents and two teen-agers this translates into 24 glasses of juice daily and a compost heap the size of Mount McKinley. Roughly 50 pounds of produce per week would make its way through the juice machine, necessitating many, many trips to the grocery store or a separate room in the house set aside for storage.

And what about the promised health benefits? First of all the good news: fruits and vegetables are good stuff, and the juice extracted therefrom contains lots of good stuff as well. Lots...but not all. For comparison's sake let's look at the nutrient value of 240 grams of raw carrot and 240 grams of carrot juice--bearing in mind that it takes roughly 1360 grams of carrots to produce 240 grams of juice. In terms of calories and carbohydrate content the raw item and the juice are pretty much the same: 22 grams of carbohydrate and 96 calories. The vitamin A content of the raw carrot, however, is 18,225 IUs compared to the juice's 11, 520.

On the bad news side of things we have the expense of juicing--the machine and the volume of produce required PLUS possible negative health effects. Heading the list of the latter are mouth sores that accompany excessive juice intake. Another real possibility is an excessive intake of beta-carotene, which has been associated with weakening of bone structure. A somewhat less tangible but nonetheless real possibility is the missing out on certain compounds that may not make it into the juice. And, without a doubt, the juice devotee won't get the important fibre that ends up being thrown out.

To stir up a different hornet's nest, let's now consider the theory that excessive vegetable intake could be cancer causing. According to some scientists plants exposed to industrial pollution can change the aromatic amines found therein to potentially cancer-causing chemicals known as mutagens. Unlike animals, which urinate away most mutagens, plants find a handy little compartment in their cells and store them. It would be extremely difficult to eat sufficient amounts of vegetables to deliver harmful doses of these mutagens, but when you can consume three pounds of carrots in an eight-ounce drink, that's a different story. The aforesaid is still just a theory, but it's a theory based on solid science.

For a really off-the-wall theory against exotic juicing, consider the advice of macrobiotic gurus who advise against eating anything that was planted where you weren't...or grows where you don't. Finally, consider the possibility that after spending a lot of money on the machine and countless hours on juicing, you might one day slap yourself upside the head and exclaim: I could have had a V8!

Salads--wise or otherwise?

Whether you work inside the home, outside the home, live at home or away from home, any meal in a restaurant will invariably put you face-to-face with a salad bar. The reasons given for a restaurateur providing a salad bar and the patrons partaking of it are all of the highest order: salads are nutritious; they aren't 'fattening'; they're an inexpensive meal; even people on a special diet can have a salad. But do these reasons hold water--or salad dressing? An analysis of the cabbage patch is in order.

First off, is a salad in fact nutritious? Obviously that depends on the salad maker. A bowlful of lettuce topped with gobs of Thousand Island dressing is not the stuff of which dietitians' dreams are made. Despite a reputation to the contrary, iceberg lettuce isn't a great source of any particular nutrient and doesn't even contribute much in the way of fibre. Romaine lettuce, on the other hand, and its cousin spinach, are terrific sources of vitamins A and C as well as other vitamins and minerals (not a good bioavailable source of iron and calcium, however). The other veggies that usually get tossed into a salad can probably all claim 'nutritious' as an appropriate adjective.

Well then, how about 'not fattening'? Aside from the fact that anything you put in your mouth that's over and above your energy requirements for that day can be considered 'fattening', salads can be as fattening as chocolate covered donuts or a hot fudge sundae if you choose too much of the wrong dressing and fixings. Almost every dressing is the wrong dressing when it's put on in soup-ladle amounts. Take a gander at this: you will receive for each tablespoon of oil-120 calories; Thousand Island-80; French-65. Many people think an oil and vinegar dressing is a low-cal option; well, the vinegar does have zero calories. Diet salad dressings come in at 6 to 30 calories per tablespoon and most people can't tell the difference. If you do chose a low-cal dressing, don't pour it on like water--they're not calorie free. At home, or in some restaurants, you can opt for a yogurt-based dressing; delicious and lower in calories.

The dressing that you put on your salad is one thing, the omega-6 rich oil in which it is drowning is another (see my June 19th blog for more about omega-6). Most salad bars offer, along with a good variety of fresh, unadorned vegetables, a selection of pre-made salads--like potato, macaroni, three-bean, and marinated veggies. If one of these finds its way onto your plate, then for goodness sake use it as a dressing for the rest of your salad and don't add insult to injury by topping it off with a bit of Italian. Then, of course, there are the bacon bits (real or fake), croutons (deep fried) and olives. The bacon bits, olives and pickles are especially to be avoided if you're watching your sodium intake.

Surely we can't argue with 'inexpensive meal'. That depends on your definition of a meal. Where's the beef? Most salad bars come up pretty short in the animal protein department, except for the cheese. Loading up on chick peas and assembling a nice combo of vegetable protein will handle the amino acid requirement to some degree, but that still leaves minerals like iron on the outside looking in. Many vegetables (spinach as an example) contain hefty amounts of iron, but because of the oxalic acid in them, a good part (most) of the iron isn't absorbed by the body. Calcium and riboflavin get short shrift as well, if you don't have some of the cheese.

It's certainly not the intention of this piece to wilt your enthusiasm for salads, but like everything else that you eat, season your salad with a bit of common sense. Like the obese person who orders a hot fudge sundae, but hold the cherry since he's on a diet, a lot of self-delusion takes place around a salad bar.

Sweet Seduction

On day five of Genesis, as one might imagine it, God was meeting with a committee of angels to put the finishing touches on the latest creation. “These poor creatures” He/She muses, “are going to have one heck of a life--let’s try and sweeten the pot with a bit of pleasure”. “Hey! I know”, calls out one of the seraphim (we think it was Raphael) “that fruit you invented was terrific--people will love the sweetness, let’s extract it and call it sugar”. “All right”, says God, “but only the sugar; no apples” At this point Grabriel blows his horn: “Well, sweet is terrific, but oonly one pleasure? How about we make procreation a little more fun!” “You got it”, says God--and the meeting adjourns.

And so the centuries passed with people enjoying sweetness and sex at every opportunity. Toward the end of the eighteenth century, however, it struck some that this pleasure thing was getting entirely ouat of hand. Something had to go--and that would be sex. Well, not gone entirely, you understand, but certainly put back in the closet where it belonged. Words like DECADENT and SINFUL were used to describe the exposure of a woman’s ankle. Self-appointed moralists determined what was proper, what was permissable fun, and where to draw the line. Bear-baiting, another popular sport for the masses at the time, was frowned on by puritans--not because it hurt the bear, but rather because it gave too muvh pleasure to the spectators. Purity was in, pleasure was definitely out.

Well, nothing like a couple of world wars to put things in perspective. Before long, sex was back with a bang. Playboy and Penthouse established that a woman’s ankle was acceptable viewing and once forbidden pleasures of the flesh were now even encouraged! Deep-down, hpowever, the puritan/Victorian spirit still waged its war--now with a new target: SWEET. Moralism joined forces with snobbism so that sweet pleasures became SINFUL and DECADENT and something only enjoyed by the great unwashed. Despite their greatest efforts, however, even the high-minded could be seduced by sweet (something they soon cloaked in moral acceptability by getting it in the form of honey or PURE maple syrup). Sugar was denounced from secular pulpits as white death; consumers were urged to find it on food labels and condemn the manufacturers. Parents were warned of the evils to befall those negligent enough to let their children have sugar--the dread hyperactivity! Criminals’ backgrounds were scrutinized, their evil deeds laid at the foot of sucrose. Prisons developed no-sugar policies to keep the inmates in a state of quietude. The murderer of a prominent San Francisco politician was given a light sentence because he acted under the influence of sugar--the so-called “Twinkie” defence.

On the surface it appeared that sugar was the target of the moralist/purist/sonbbist’s wrath. It soon became evident, however, that what really raised their ire was”sweetness” or, indirectly, pleasure. To wit, the flak about saccharin and cyclamates. “Unnatural” was the new cry, and any substance that attempted to provide the pleasure of sweetness without its alleged attendant miseries was going to have a monumental battle on its hands. Having the pleasure without paying the piper served only to outrage the moralists. The very notion that one could have enjoyment without any repercussions flew in the face of the very principle that moralists hold most dear--the wages of sin. If no wages were evident at first, it wasn’t long before they were trumpeted from every food-faddist pulpit. Lo, the wages of aspartame: headache, personality disorders, brain tumors, even, some claimed, weight gain. Aspartame and its cousin sucralose just weren’t natural.

At this point a new twist developed: sweet was still evil and certainly to be avoided in things like colas, twinkies and Kool-Aid. BUT, SUGAR IN VERY EXPENSIVE CHOCOLATES became morally and socially acceptable. Certainly the masses couldn't afford them--so this kept the snobs happy. Fancy--and expensive--chocolate
desserts became all the rage. Restaurants featured "Death-By-Chocolate
nights and Decadent Desserts were very in. Yes, the word "decadent" was
used, but in a wink-wink, nudge-nudge. fun kind of way. And, of course,
these sweets were "all natural", prompting a war of words between the
naturalists who felt that sugar comes from the earth and is therefore
"natural" and the ultra-purists who still only tolerate sweetness if it
comes from a fruit, fruit juice, or honey (special consideration for
unprocessed maple syrup).

As the war on sweet continued to rage, moralists began to use sweetness as
a way of judging their fellows. Much as the Victorians judged others by
their sexual mores, the New Victorians use sweet as their yardstick.
Shopping carts are examined for incriminating evidence; "bad" parents give
their children Kool-Ade (sweetened with sugar OR aspartame OR sucralose.
Recipes using honey instead of sugar are passed around; any child who
misbehaves is suspected of having a parent who lets sugar in the house.

Coincidentally, as sweet became a four-letter word, alcohol was undergoing
a similar illusionary transformation. HARD liquor, demon rum for example,
was being replaced on the cocktail circuit by soft liquors like wine and
beer. Never mind that the average glass of wine contains as much alcohol
as a regular mixed drink, wines--especially white--are seen as soft,
gentle, hardly even intoxicating. Sweet wines, of course, are only for the
unsophisticated or particular ethnic groups. Dry wines are much more chic,
even dry beer has become the drink of the knowledgeable.

What we have seen, then, are numerous ways in which nutritional fact can
be distorted to suit the philosophical approach of the distorter. Pleasure
is not evil, nor is the sweetness associated with it--but innuendo is
mightier than the scientific sword, and fallacies continue to flourish.

Why, one might ask, would a dietitian/nutritionist be-stir herself about
the mythology surrounding sweetness since, obviously, sweet is not an
essential nutrient. True enough, but, to this dietitian at least, the
sugar myth and the aspartame myth are but the tip of a huge iceberg of
nutrition nonsense. If people can be misled about one of life's little
pleasures, then how readily can they be fooled about things like mega
doses of vitamins, bee pollen, food combining, grapefruit pills and a host
of fakeries to numerous to mention.

Sugar does supply energy--a not insignificant element in the diet. A
growing problem for children of some over-zealous parents is simply
that--a growing problem. Diets devoid of sugar and fat (another favourite
villain) are simply unable to support growth, no matter the amount of
spinach and alfalfa sprouts consumed. On the other hand, too much in the
way of calories from either sugar or fat, will lead to a growing problem
of another dimension.

Dietetics is a combination of the science of nutrition with the art of
seeing that food gets eaten. A little honey on the carrots, some sugar
substitute on the coleslaw, brown sugar on your oat bran, sugar in the
cranberries; even a touch of molasses in the bean crock. The art of
sweetening the offering is very often responsible for getting the
nutrients ingested. Who could object when sweetening is practiced in
moderation?

A few quacks still persist. A "doctor" told a conference I recently
attended that the leading addictive drug in North America is sugar. There
are still those who feel we must be punished for our pleasures--the wages
of sin so to speak--and the wages are double if the sweetness is an
"unnatural" chemical. At the very least, lovers of sweet will pay with
obesity and hyperactivity.

But that view is becoming one of the minority as people accept the wisdom
of moderation in all things. The Victorian mind-set has had to accept that
safe sex doesn't mean no sex, and sensible sweetness doesn't have to leave
a bitter taste in the mouth.

Vitamin C and chronic illnesses

At the Public Archives in Ottawa there is a painting by H.R. Perrigard in which a group of explorers, led by Jacques Cartier, and a number of natives are shown peering with great interest at a fallen tree. This might be dismissed as some strange peace ritual by those with neither an historical nor nutritional bent, but in actuality the natives are busy teaching Cartier and his group how to cure scurvy with a concoction made from the branches of a juniper tree. The natives beat the palefaces to the punch by about two hundred years, since it wasn't until 1747 that an English surgeon, James Lind, discovered that citrus fruit would cure the strange ailment befalling English seamen.

The treatment with oranges, lemons, and limes not only eliminated the symptoms of swollen limbs, hemorrhaging gums and skin, weakness and loss of teeth (not to mention the likelihood of death) but gave them the nicknames of "limeys" as well. The curative agent in the citrus fruit, of course, was ascorbic acid or vitamin C. While scurvy is one of the oldest known deficiency diseases (beri-beri ranks up there as well), vitamin C today is still a controversial vitamin...especially with the H1N1 virus raising its ugly head.

Scurvy has been around for such a long time that there was even a Latin word for it--"scorbutus"; hence ascorbic means "without scurvy". Vitamin C was synthesized in the laboratory in 1933, and it's been upward and onward ever since. Before getting into the controversial stuff let's see what ascorbic acid does for us in normal, recommended amounts.

Unlike the other water-soluble vitamins ascorbic acid is not known to act as a coenzyme in any of the metabolic processes. Its main function is involved with the production of collagen, which is part of all our connective tissue. The formation of collagen is important for wound healing and therapeutic doses of vitamin C are given to burn victims recovering from surgery. Collagen also features prominently in anti-aging ads from the cosmetic industry, but that's another story. When amino acids are being converted for neurotransmitter synthesis, vitamin C is there; it's also an important presence for the enhancement of iron absorption--an all round good fellow to have around. As little as 10 milligrams of ascorbic acid a day will keep you from getting scurvy, but for maximum health, more is recommended. How much more is wherein lies the rub. The usual dietary standard is 45-60 mg for an adult; Linus Pauling opted for 10,000 mg.

Which brings us to the fascinating subjects of vitamin C and the common cold and influenza, vitamin C and cancer, and vitamin C and heart disease.
Linus Pauling won two more Nobel Prizes than I ever will, and was certainly no dummy. His Nobels were, however, in chemistry and peace; not nutrition. The controversy boils down to a disagreement between Pauling's followers and other great scientists who have been unable to duplicate his findings. Pauling claimed that large doses of vitamin C will prevent and/or cure the common cold (some now claim the same benefit for the H1N1 flu), while opponents of the theory point out that since the body excretes excesses of the vitamin, these large doses are worthless.

The placebo effect in all this cannot be discounted. If one is ingesting a substance that one truly believes to be effective in preventing or curing a cold, then one might very likely experience just such an effect. The definitive study may have come from the Canadian army which found among its volunteers that while vitamin C didn't prevent colds, it did provide a less severe and shorter illness. More recently it's been found that those who routinely take a modest supplement of vitamin C are less likely to contract the cold virus.

There have been conflicting reports on the effectiveness of large doses of ascorbic acid in lowering serum cholesterol levels as well as its use in treating cancer patients. Regarding the latter, an interesting study was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine a few years back. This was a double blind study (neither the patient nor the doctor knows if the experimental substance or a placebo/sugar pill is being administered) in which one group of patients was given 10 grams (that's 10,000 mg) of ascorbic acid, while another group of similarly afflicted patients was given the placebo. No difference was found in survival time or severity of symptoms.

While citrus fruits are the excellent sources of vitamin C that come to mind, we mustn't forget strawberries, broccoli, tomatoes, cantaloupe, cabbage, potatoes and cranberries. Because it is quite unstable in light and air we should take certain precautions with vitamin C. For example, don't shred the cabbage too soon before the meal, don't let an uncovered container of orange juice hang around on the kitchen table. Frozen orange juice retains most of its original ascorbic acid, but once it's been reconstituted keep it covered and in the refrigerator.

The controversy over vitamin C will likely outlive me, but if you're "into" the stuff remember that large doses have been shown to be harmful to the kidneys and developing fetuses, not to mention the potential for fowling up diabetic tests. In my view the maximum daily intake for an adult shouldn't exceed 500 mg.

Paleolithic Nutrition

Just as it's true that the longer we live the sooner we'll die, it's also true that the longer we live the more likely we are to encounter some modern day, diet-related health problems that didn't worry our paleolithic forebears a whit. Old cro-magnon didn't give a fig about heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, or osteoporosis since he probably wouldn't live long enough for them to catch up with him anyway. The upshot of all this is that we've had precious little nutritional adaptability to show for our two million or so years on the planet and our genetic constitution hasn't changed notably since we first stood on all twos, some 200,000 years ago.

Oh sure, some races (notably Caucasian) have managed to retain intestinal lactase into adulthood so we can handle dairy products but this hardly counts as a genetic evolutionary trend. No, the fact is that, digestively speaking, we haven't come a long way baby, and our bodies are having trouble keeping up with the changes that "progress" has wrought. In short, a return to the diet of Alley Oop and the gang (if you're too young to get this reference, ask your grandparents) would stand us in very good stead. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine stated the same thing except that they are much too dignified to speak of Alley Oop's diet, preferring to term it Paleolithic Nutrition.

A rose by any other name and all that, the point is the further we stray from the dietary habits of our hunter-gatherer forefathers and foremothers, the closer we get to those chronic illnesses of a "civilized" society. But before you start nodding "I thought so", let's have a look at what the average Joe was eating, say, 30,000 years ago. Probably the biggest surprise for most will be that he packed away a heck of a lot more meat than we do today. The meat differed mostly in its fat content, fat making up about 21 percent of his calories compared to the roughly 35 percent fat in the average western diet. Otherwise, Joe's meat was just about the same as ours--same cholesterol content, same amino acid breakdown.

And, believe it or not, our thirty thousand year old cousins weren't into veggies--at least not the way we know them. We're talking pre-agricultural revolution era and ratatouille wasn't a hot item. Wild plants were big on the menu--roots, beans, nuts, tubers and fruits being very common; cereal grains were hardly used at all. It amazes me that anyone ever looked at some wheat and envisioned the bread it could make, never mind Wheaties and Cap'n Crunch.

Cro-Magnon Joe's daily bread, according to the experts, was not bread at all, but looked pretty much like this: wild game (35 percent of the diet was meat), cholesterol (591 mg--amazing what fossils can tell you), sodium (690 mg), fat (21%), calcium (1580 mg--from milking their yaks), ascorbic acid or vitamin C (392 mg), fibre (45.7 grams from wild plants). All of this makes for interesting reading, but so what? Well, how about this: if you are what you eat, maybe you're a Neanderthal. The point that the scientists make is that the human body has been "programmed" for a high fibre intake (no surprise) and a high meat consumption (surprise!)

The paleolithic period on which the researchers focused was from a time when stone tools were first manufactured, to shortly before the development of agriculture. But even during that great time span the vagaries of nature arranged it so that man's diet varied greatly every thousand years or so. Maybe future archeologists will determine that 21st century man was programmed to eat Big Macs and 'shakes.

Lactose Intolerance: the new housewife's syndrome?

Back in the day, by which I mean about thirty years ago, there seemed to be an epidemic of what was called "housewife's syndrome". The term was coined, with some disdain I think, to describe an indefinable, ambiguous illness that seemed to afflict women and the main symptom was tiredness. For all I know, it was a forerunner of chronic fatigue syndrome. Time passed and the diagnosis passed out of fashion. But today there seems to be another affliction to take its place: lactose intolerance. This condition, of course, has nothing in common with housewife's syndrome other than it seems to have become trendy. People are quick to self-diagnose and it's often given as an excuse for rejecting certain foods...especially if they have any dairy in them.

I gave a presentation last night and one of the attendees claimed that she couldn't eat butter because she was lactose intolerant. Whoa, Nellie! Butter doesn't have any lactose. Neither do most hard cheeses; if they do contain lactose it's in minuscule amounts. In addition, lactose intolerant folks can eat yogurt since the friendly bacteria do a nice job of breaking down the lactose. And, of course, there are the lactase pills that can be taken before ingesting a product with lactose. There are also lactose-free milks that can be bought. All in all, lactose intolerance doesn't mean having to say "no" to dairy.

But, back to the issue of self-diagnosis and believing in a condition that while for some is a real problem, for others exists only in their minds. Please note my avoidance of the phrase "it's all in their head". This term, although manifestly accurate in some cases, has been dismissed as pejorative by most. But I digress. A study was recently published that showed that the actual prevalence of lactose maldigestion (another term for lactose intolerance) was significantly lower than previously thought. Prior to this study the incidence of lactose intolerance was thought to be 80 percent among African-Americans; 50 percent among Mexican-Americans; 15 percent among those of European descent. The newest estimates show the incidence to be: 19.5 percent for African-Americans; 10.05 percent for Hispanics; and 7.72 percent for those of European extraction. Big, big difference.

A lot of the misinformation came from animal rights/vegan groups who were fond of saying that roughly 80 percent of the world's population suffered from lactose intolerance so, therefore, nobody should consume dairy products. And, again, if someone felt uncomfortable after eating a food that contained any dairy at all, they sometimes jumped to the conclusion that they were lactase deficient. Notice that the o in lactose indicates the milk sugar; the a in lactase indicates the enzyme responsible for digesting the lactose.

The downside of the actual malady is the need for some exquisitely sensitive individuals to avoid the majority of milk products; the downside for those who mistakenly believe that they indeed have lactose intolerance when they actually don't, or have it to a degree that is entirely manageable, is that they will deprive themselves of dairy's unique package of essential nutrients. If you suspect that you might be lactose intolerant then by all means have yourself tested. It should be borne in mind, however, that the standard test for lactose intolerance involves drinking a solution with 50 grams of lactose (the equivalent of a litre of milk) in one sitting, after which blood glucose levels are measured. Many people will react to that high a dose with some discomfort. A better test is the breath hydrogen test in which hydrogen in the breath is measured after a known quantity of lactose has been ingested.

An important fact to remember is that no human being produces the enzyme (alpha-galactosidase) needed to break down certain carbohydrates in beans, yet people eat them, sing silly songs about the effects, and get on with things. Nobody advocates a world-wide society aimed at getting rid of beans; let's have the same tolerance for lactose.

Challenging Nutrition Myths: Myth # 5

Myth # 5: Most ready-to-eat cereals are processed, sugar/chemical laden air puffs.

The problem here is with the word "most". It's true that there are some ready-to-eat cereals that don't offer a great deal in the way of nutrients, but they are in the minority. Most ready-to-eat cereals are very good sources of B vitamins and iron. Some are excellent sources of fibre as well, and others contain sugar that consumers would pay less for if they added their own moderate amount.

The important thing to ask yourself before choosing a cereal is "what is it you expect the cereal to do for you?" The obvious answer, at least to me, is that the cereal should please the palate, remove any feelings of hunger and provide the nutrients that will get you going for the day...if you're eating it at breakfast! Over and above that, however, a cereal should supply vitamins and minerals-which they will do to a greater or lesser degree- and fibre, which separates the men from the boys, so to speak.

You may be tired of hearing about the importance of fibre, but the fact is that most Canadians don't get enough. So, when choosing a cereal, one of the chief criteria should be its fibre content. Unless the cereal is made from whole grains or bran, it's not likely going to make a significant contribution to your fibre intake.

An important thing to remember as well is that not all fibres, or all brans, are created alike. The water-soluble fibres, such as those found in oat bran, can be helpful in lowering serum cholesterol and in regulating blood sugar levels. The fibre found in wheat bran (a water-INsoluble fibre)won't do much for cholesterol problems, but is great for ensuring bowel regularity.

Not to be overlooked is the importance of the milk that's added to the cereal. It can be argued that for many cereals, it's the milk that makes the major nutrient contribution. Calcium, protein, riboflavin, potassium, zinc, vitamins A and D are just a few of the nutritional nuggets that the milk confers. It is most unfortunate that a lot of milk gets thrown out when the cereal is technically finished

So, you see, cereal choices aren't something to be taken lightly. The cereal section of the grocery store contains some excellent choices; others-not so good. It's up to the consumer to choose wisely (as is the case with everything), but there are many packaged cereals that can make a significant contribution to your diet. It's a good idea to steer clear of any cereal that lists sugar as its first ingredient and, as mentioned already, whole grain is always your best bet. It costs less if you cook the cereal yourself, but watch out for some of the instant rolled-oat products; they're sometimes loaded with sugar.
Till tomorrow with myth # 6.

Gremlins, Goblins, and Nutritional Hocus Pocus

I'm postponing the Challenging Nutritional Myths series in honour of Halloween (it will be back on Monday).

One might think that because I'm a dietitian Halloween upsets me because kids get a lot of candy and other junky foods. Not so...in fact I doubt that an otherwise healthful diet will be thrown off course by one night of excess, providing parents have sense enough to dole out the remaining treats judiciously. The night of tricks and treats and disguises does get me thinking, however, of the many ways in which the public can be fooled about food and nutrition.

For openers, let's consider the goblin that keeps raising its ugly head: the raw food movement. Yesterday I discussed the pitfalls awaiting those who opt for raw milk, but the raw food movement goes way beyond that. There are countless examples of ways in which this notion is flawed: wheat, soybeans, kidney beans, all of which are processed (and must be) before we eat them. Of course, there are those who feel that if they don't heat a food, then it therefore is raw and unprocessed.

The biggest argument against consuming food in its raw form is, naturally enough, bacterial contamination. Even sushi and sashemi lovers are taking a bit of a risk unless they know the fish is absolutely fresh and the chef knows what he/she is doing. If the raw fish is frozen prior to preparation, then the threat from parasites and worms (nematodes) is removed, but there is still a threat from viruses that can lead to hepatitis A and the Norwalk virus. Bacterial risks include listeria and salmonella among others. Raw meat is a whole other ball game. Lovers of steak tartare are usually safe, but one never knows. As for raw poultry and raw pork...puleeze.

The argument in favour of raw food is that there is significantly less loss of vitamins. This is true, up to a point. But carrots, for one example, yield more beta-carotene when they're cooked than when eaten raw because the cooking causes cell rupturing which yields more of the vitamin. Now, the greater amount of beta-carotene in the cooked product can be measured in nanograms, but still it shows that the raw argument doesn't always hold water.

Another gremlin that is reinforced by thoughts of Halloween is the notion of "too much of a good thing". We all know by now that a bit of dark chocolate might be just what the doctor ordered, but too much can pose a serious problem. There are other similar situations in the world of nutrition, none of which are likely to be doled out on Halloween. I'm thinking first about vitamin/mineral supplements. I doubt that even nutrition fanatics will hand out chewable vitamins as a treat for tricksters, and if your diet is really ghoulish then you should consider following your country's food guide. Until that happens, it probably won't hurt to take a multi-vitamin pill once a day. The problem arises when people are convinced that they need particular vitamins or minerals in huge amounts. Even as seemingly innocuous a nutrient as beta-carotene has been shown to be risky when large doses are consumed. Ditto for vitamin E, zinc and selenium to name a few. The fact is, we just don't know what excessive intakes of these nutrients by themselves might do to us. A word to the wise: don't fall for those tricksters who try to convince you about "health in a bottle". Good health is partly dependent on good eating and appropriate amounts of exercise.

The next perhaps surprising entry in the goblin category is juice. Who would ever have thought that a dietitian would be cautioning people against excessive juice consumption? Well, weirder things have happened. As it turns out, some folks have gotten carried away with the idea that juice is a good thing. Which it is...as long as you don't overdo it. The main problem with juice is that it can pack a heavy caloric wallop and it lacks the fibre of the original fruit or vegetable from which it was extracted. Juice is a quick way to get a lot of nutrients, but the whole fruit/veggie is still your best bet.

Wrapping up this ghostly, ghastly gallery is the muffin and cupcake...disguised as nutritious nuggets. Remember this: most cupcakes and muffins are simply fat little cakes. Just because a couple of blueberries find their way into the product doesn't make it healthful. Also, we need to bear in mind that the majority of commercially prepared muffins and cupcakes use shortening as their fat source. I'm sure you don't do this at home, but if so, please opt for a non-hydrogenated fat for your baking. On top of all that, the store-bought muffin or cupcake is often so big you need a fork-lift to get it off your plate. Mini-muffins/cupcakes are the way to go...might even make a good Halloween treat if people weren't scared that there were some unwanted items slipped inside!

So that's all my scary news for this time. A big BOO to all the nutrition misinformation out there. You can still count on bobbing-for-apples as a great Halloween tradition!

Challengin Nutrition Myths: Myth # 4

Myth # 4: Food today is full of dangerous chemicals.

All foods are made up of chemicals. You might be surprised to see the list of chemicals that make up a perfectly natural apple or orange. Certain processed foods have small amounts of approved chemicals added to increase their safety, shelf-life, palatability, appearance, texture, etc. What some folks have forgotten is that "it's the dose that makes the poison"...in other words, it's the amount of most substances that will determine whether or not they are toxic. In small amounts approved preservatives and additives are not harmful and are infinitely preferable to mould, rancidity and bacterial invasion.

Most countries have laws that are very strict in terms of just what and how much of a particular additive or preservative is permitted to be put in a food. The testing for safety of additives and preservatives is extremely thorough as well. Unfortunately foods rot, bacteria invade, and insects attack; nature is not always as benign as it's cracked up to be.

For whatever reason some people seem more comfortable with an illness delivered by nature than with the scare of man-made chemicals. The nonsense of drinking raw, unprocessed milk is a case in point. Despite overwhelming evidence of the risk of bacterial contamination in raw milk, some people would consume it in preference to pasteurized milk because of a sense that it is more "natural". Similarly there are those who argue against the fluoridation of drinking water even though this practice has been shown to be of benefit to teeth and safe in the amounts used. Another fear is of irradiation. While this method of food preservation could be argued to be unnecessary in western countries since we have other, effective methods, there are great numbers of people starving in third world countries while donated food rots or falls victim to insects. They could benefit greatly if this food were to be irradiated.

Yes, we want to be vigilant about food safety, but at the same time we should be receptive to advances in food technology. And remember the alleged conversation between two cavemen: "How come everything we eat is 100 percent natural, yet our life expectancy is still only 23?"