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.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
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!
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!
Monday, November 23, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, November 20, 2009
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!
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!
Thursday, November 19, 2009
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!
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!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, November 6, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, November 2, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
