Gwyneth Paltrow and vitamin D

I've just read a report stating that after experiencing a leg fracture, Gwyneth Paltrow was diagnosed as suffering from vitamin D deficiency...I would add: among other deficiencies. The culprit was assumed to be her macrobiotic diet, and if nutritional science tells us anything, that labeling of the culprit would be right on the money. According to Ms. Paltrow, writing in her internet newsletter "Goop", her doctors tested her vitamin D levels and they turned out to be the lowest they had ever seen. Ms. Paltrow was then advised to spend some time in the sun which, according to her was contradictory to the UNusual (I think that was a typo; sun avoidance is the usual advice for those wishing to avoid skin cancers) advice of staying away from dangerous rays.

In my view, what Ms Paltrow needs to do is to abandon her macrobiotic diet and adhere to a sensible diet in which all of the food groups are consumed in moderation. I doubt that she would heed this advice, but as things stand now, unless she's taking plenty of supplements (and the vitamin D deficiency would indicate that she's not), then she's headed for big trouble.

Yes, osteoporosis is something that her diet would make her vulnerable to, and not just because of the lack of vitamin D. Calcium is very hard to come by on a macrobiotic diet, despite popular conceptions to the contrary. Substances found in plant foods (phytic acid and oxalic acid) render the calcium--and iron and zinc-- very difficult for the body to absorb. So a plant that looks good on paper for its content of various minerals, say spinach, will actually only deliver a negligible amount to the body; in the case of spinach it's the fault of the oxalic acid. This is not to say that spinach isn't a great vegetable; it's a great source of vitamin A and potassium among other nutrients, but as a source of calcium and iron, it's pretty much a waste of time. Even broccoli, while its calcium is highly bioavailable, its absolute content of the stuff is comparatively low. Kale, on the other hand, is an excellent source and is highly bioavailable, but I'm not sure that anybody (even Ms. Paltrow) eats kale three times a day in sufficient quantities to meet their calcium requirements.

Essentially, then, Ms. Paltrow needs, and probably takes, a calcium supplement...but calcium alone can't guarantee strong and healthy bones. Milk, as it happens, contains all of the nutrients needed for bone health..a perfect tool, if you will, for building bones. I suspect, however, that milk or yogurt wouldn't be part of a macrobiotic diet.

In terms of vitamin D supplements there are two types on offer: vitamin D 2 or ergocalciferol, and vitamin D3, otherwise known as cholecalciferol. In the laboratory D2 is made from the irradiation of ergosterol in yeast; D3 comes from the irradiation of 7-dehydrocholesterol found in lanolin. One would suspect that Ms Paltrow would chose the supplement that's made from yeast (no animals being involved) rather than that from lanolin. That's a poor choice, however, since we know pretty conclusively that D2 won't do nearly the job performed by D3. Maybe for her health's sake she could bend her self-imposed rules just a bit and opt for the lanolin source.

Not only does vitamin D deficiency put one at risk for osteoporosis, but there are a myriad of other illnesses that crop up more frequently in the D deprived. Nasties like multiple sclerosis as well as cancers of the breast, colon , and ,for men, prostate.

Ms. Paltrow would do well to have her children's vitamin D status checked as well since breastfed children of women who have followed a vegan or macrobiotic diet for long periods are themselves at risk for vitamin D deficiency (as well as deficiencies of vitamin B12, protein, among others). Anyway, I wish her well and hope she gets the kind of nutritional advice that will stand her in good stead, rather than from a host of syncophantic charlatans.

The organic food myth

The title of the article as well as that about which I’m going to write, might upset some people. My task as I see it, however, is to give my opinion on nutrition and while I would staunchly defend anyone’s right to buy organic foods if they so wish, I feel compelled to spell out the facts…as I see them.
Many Canadians have concerns about perceived contamination in the foods they ingest. They worry about chemical residues, additives, antibiotics, nitrates…you name it. The existing wariness resulted from a variety of widely publicized episodes, going back as far as the scare over cyclamates to monosodium glutamate to the current concern about antibiotics in cattle.
The root of some of these incidents is that analytical methods have improved so much that today even nanograms of ‘contaminants’ can be found, but in such amounts that pose a threat to nobody. The actual fear of contaminants in food is mostly based on a state of mind, not on any real evidence. In some ways we can thank the tremendous technological advancement that has put the consumer out of touch with his/her surroundings in that we continually come into contact with advancements that we neither understand nor control.
In terms of nutrition we have always straddled a narrow line between toxicity and deficiency. Many women suffer from iron deficiency, while adult men can suffer from an excess of the mineral. Selenium is an essential trace element, but is injurious at a level of five parts per million. I’m always amazed at water ‘purifiers’ that promise to rid your water of minerals like calcium, potassium and magnesium…don’t they know we need those things? Too little fluorine can aggravate tooth decay, but too much can be poisonous. Nitrates exist in ordinary veggies like spinach, carrots and beets, no matter what method of farming is used to produce them. In fact, I can recall a case in the seventies where a condition called methemoglobinemia occurred as a result of consuming too many nitrates from organic carrot juice.

There are many other issues to be considered when making the choice as to whether or not to go ‘organic’, things like the environment, sustainability, possible social benefits that type of thing. In terms of nutrition, however, there seems to be no advantage in organic over more traditional types of farming (involving the use of man-made fertilizers). The cost of organic produce is almost invariably higher than the ‘regular’, and that higher price doesn’t seem to be justified by more nutrients. A British study published last September conducted a meta-analysis (a review of the major studies done on a specific topic) of 55 major investigations (from 162 separate surveys over a span of 50 years) into the issue of nutrition and organic foods and concluded that the amounts of important nutrients in food was essentially the same, whether the foods were certified organic or not. The nutrients they looked at were vitamin C, zinc, potassium, calcium and magnesium among others. They did note that organic produce had higher levels of phosphorus and acidity, while the traditional crops had more nitrogen. The researchers pointed out that these differences could well have to do with a difference in the fertilizers used and/or the ripeness of a food when it was picked…you might recall my pointing out that frozen was sometimes superior to fresh because the foods were frozen at their peak of ripeness.
Organic groups dismissed the study stating that it didn’t take into account things like pesticides, herbicides, environmental impact and animal welfare. But, since the scientists didn’t claim to have looked at these issues, only nutrient content was studied, their dismissal seems somewhat unfounded. The organic industry has never (as far as I know) made nutritional claims for their goods, but a brief glance at the internet shows that some bloggers are more than willing to claim nutritional superiority for their products. Not only that, they would scare the bejesus out of anybody with the temerity to consume regular produce. Cancer seems to be the biggie…almost every site I looked at claimed that one would be at greater risk for cancer unless they consumed organic foods. As far back as January of 1974 (page 202 if you want to look it up) Prevention magazine claimed that “One MD in California has cured four cancer cases by putting them on a 100 percent organic diet”. So you can see, the organic movement is nothing new; what’s possibly new is that now it is seen as another way to make a buck. Not that there’s anything wrong with that: people who grow broccoli by the traditional method do it to make money as well. In fact, everything that goes into your mouth is providing somebody, somewhere, with a means to make a living.
It seems to me that many consumers have been so influenced by erroneous information from a variety of sources that the general understanding of nutrition is spotty at best. Vegetables and fruits have gotten so much play by the media that many believe they are the heart and soul of a healthful diet. Not so…they certainly are important, but so are dairy, whole grains and meat, poultry and fish. Yes, we should consume at least six servings of fruit/vegetables each day, but organic won’t necessarily provide any more nutrients than the regular kind.

The food of love has many forms

In view of all the interest in romance of late, I thought a few words on aphrodisiacs (known for their alleged ability in the bedroom) might be appropriate. I suppose it could be argued that dietitians have no business dabbling in aphrodisiacs, but it is early summer and, after all, our business is the effect of food on the body.

The first aphrodisiac was, of course, the apple…and we know where that got us. Naturally the Bible dresses up the story to take out erotic overtones, but we know perfectly well what Eve and the devil had in mind for poor old Adam. The next historical mention of aphrodisiacs is in the form of powdered unicorn horn—one of the reasons Noah tried so desperately to get the unicorns on board the Ark. Powdered unicorn was selling like hotcakes for a while way back when, which says something for mind over matter, since the unicorn never actually existed, never mind his horn.

But the public hasn’t been fond of being confused with the facts and once they decided that love potions were effective, then new and improved aphrodisiacs had to be found. A love potion was used to arouse love, while the aphrodisiac was favoured for merely arousing. If a couple were already lovers, then these “erotic” foods were given to improve performance.

Most aphrodisiacs consist of a regular food with a certain something added; some contain a variety of odd and noxious substances—the more noxious the better. That which is unpleasant to one person, however, may be delectable to another. When frogs legs were first introduced into French cuisine, their main function was as an aphrodisiac—similar to eye of newt, dried lizard, starfish, camel fat and crocodile tails. The newt market had gone belly up, the Arabs were getting stingy with the camel fat, and crocodile tails were devilishly hard to get—given the crocodiles’ attachment to them. The frogs’ legs weren’t intended to appeal to the palate, but a certain je ne sais quoi in the French temperament soon had them decreed a “great French delicacy”. Snails were also once eaten for erotic purposes, but now even your prim Aunt Gertrude will eat escargots with no thoughts of sex.

Ginseng has long been considered to be an aphrodisiac, even pre-dating its use as a general cure-all and immunity enhancer. The fact that there are over a billion Chinese might say something about its potency. Oysters, of course, lead the pack of modern-day aphrodisiacs. It may be just a coincidence that the two highest concentrations of zinc are in oysters and the male reproductive organ—and that a zinc deficiency leads to delayed sexual maturation. Almonds have a remarkable reputation as an aphrodisiac, and fish is reputed to be so powerful in that regard that in ancient Egypt fish was taboo for the priests lest they become too amorous. On the other hand, St. Jerome forbade nuns to eat beans for similar reasons, but they were allowed to eat fish.

Herring, anchovies and eels have all been cited for their aphrodisiacal qualities, as has the lowly tuna—although a tuna sandwich doesn’t strike me as being much of a turn on. Contrary to what one might think (owing to their strong odour), onions and garlic are claimed by many to be aphrodisiacs and that well-known sage, Albertus Magnus, claimed that if these were combined with powdered periwinkle and added to meat dishes, great fires of passion would be kindled.

Truffles (the pig-detecting kind) are high on the list of love vegetables, but that probably has a lot to do with their rarity. Anything rare is bound to be expensive, and anything expensive tends to acquire an erotic reputation. Saffron is another good example of the expensive/erotic phenomena. Incidentally, turnip boiled in milk is said to restore potency—assuming one has lost it. Strawberries, the larger and more perfect, the better, are traditionally supposed to be among the most sensual of fruit. Dipped in chocolate, currently the mother-of-all aphrodisiacs, they can’t be beat.

The preceding bit of fun is, of course, tongue in cheek. The more serious part of the blog is that one of the best food-related gifts one can give is a food that’s rich in calcium...and has a reputation as an aphrodesiac. For that traditional breakfast-in-bed that often greets a birthday celebrant or simply someone who deserves to have breakfast made for them, I offer the following:

Ricotta Pancakes

1 C (250 mL) all-purpose flour 1 C (250 mL) ricotta cheese
1 tsp (5 mL) baking powder ¾ C (175 mL) buttermilk (or milk + 1 T vinegar)
½ tsp (2 mL) baking soda 2 eggs
¼ tsp (1 mL0 salt 1 tbsp (15 mL) orange zest (optional)
2 tsp (10 mL) sugar

Combine all the dry ingredients. Beat the liquid ingredients together and gradually add them to the dry. Then, with an egg-beater, combine all until mixed. Heat frying pan or griddle until a couple of drops of water “skitter around” the pan. Spoon the batter from a ¼ cup measure, turning the pancakes when they are puffed and full of bubbles. Depending on how large you make them, you should have roughly 16 4-inch pancakes. They may be served with maple syrup or, the following cranberry-orange sauce:
Combine ½ cup (125 mL) sugar with 1 tbsp (15 mL) cornstarch, 11/2 cups (375 mL) orange juice and 2 cups (500 mL) fresh or frozen cranberries and bring to a boil. Lower heat to simmer and cook until berries have all burst and sauce is thickened.

Quinoa: a super hero to the rescue

I used to write a column that appeared in the Canadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research…the column was called “Nutrition Stuff that Drives me Nuts”. The title was perhaps a bit inelegant, but it made the point that there are many nutrition practices and beliefs that are quite simply wrong-headed and misguided. What has me thinking about nutrition misinformation today is the flurry of ads I’ve seen recently in which cosmetic products boast about their vitamin/mineral content. I’m sure you’ve seen them; perhaps even bought them: shampoos, moisturizers, foundation, lipstick…you name it. But the one that takes the cake, so to speak, is an ad for mascara that claims to contain pro-vitamins! MASCARA, for goodness sake. God forbid that you should darken and lengthen your eyelashes with a product that doesn’t have a smidgen of vitamins!

At the other end of the spectrum we have products that really are a nutritional powerhouse, yet receive scant attention for their high quality. Did you ever stop to wonder who ate the first oyster, or the first artichoke…but, more important, how did they gain popularity? I remember my dad telling me that when he was young “everybody knew” tomatoes were poisonous, and that only poor families’ mothers had to bake with whole- wheat flour; rich moms had white flour! The point I’m getting to here (and I do have one) is that while some products are praised for non-existent or worthless nutrient content, some foods stumble along for years before being accepted. Heck, it wasn’t that long ago that you had to sprout your own alfalfa, if you wanted sprouts, and lots of folks still haven’t tried tofu.

Still in the “Joe Who?” department of foods we have a “super” grain that’s made it’s way out of health-food stores only and found its way into mainstream supermarkets, but is still a long way from being considered a “staple” in Canadian households. Analogous, I suppose, to moving from off-Broadway to the Great White Way. I’m speaking about quinoa (pronounced, as I’m sure most of you know, keen-wah). Its taste, versatility, and, most important, high nutritional value should conspire to make it one of our most popular foodstuffs. What mitigates against it, I fear, is a relatively (or comparatively) high price. That is, it’s price relative to, or compared to other grains in common usage, is a tad high. But when you take its nutritional content into account, it’s a real bargain.

The taste has been compared to that of corn or squash, mellow and grain-like, but distinctive. The dried quinoa seed keeps indefinitely and cooks like rice, but in half the time. Cooking involves simmering in a double volume of water, after which the quinoa expands, becomes nearly transparent and takes on a texture similar to tapioca. In this form it can be eaten as a breakfast porridge, or served as a side dish with meat or fish, as you would serve rice, potato or pasta. It can be used in soups and, like rice or tapioca, whipped up into a dessert.

Quinoa is terrific for vegetarians since its amino-acid balance (particularly its lysine content) makes it an excellent main dish with vegetables. It can also be used to stuff poultry, in casseroles or in dishes liked stuffed peppers or zucchini. It’s also a bonus for celiac patients as well since it’s gluten (or more properly gliadin) free. While no single food can provide all human nutritional requirements, quinoa comes pretty close…just after milk.

Like most grains (and technically, it isn’t actually a grain), quinoa contains roughly 100 calories per 28 grams (an ounce). It’s a fairly good source of phosphorus, iron, fibre, vitamin E and several B vitamins. Quinoa is considerably higher in protein and oil and lower in carbohydrate content than other grains, and its oils is primarily unsaturated. The recipe for basic quinoa is on the package; I’ll give you two recipes that I enjoy making.

QUINOA PUDDING

500 mL cooked quinoa 125 mL raisins
750 mL milk 125 mL shredded coconut
75 mL honey 125 mL finely chopped almonds
3 eggs, beaten 5 mL cinnamon
pinch of salt 5 mL lemon or orange zest
15 mL butter 5 mL lemon juice
5 mL vanilla

Combine all ingredients. Pour into a buttered baking dish or individual custard cups. Bake in a 180 º C/350º F oven until set—about 45 minutes. Serve hot or cold, topped with yogurt or cream. Serves 4-6.

CHICKEN AND QUINOA SALAD

4 cups (1 litre) cooked quinoa 50 mL rice vinegar or lemon juice
125 mL pecan halves pinch ground pepper
250 mL cooked chicken, cubed lettuce leaves, washed and dried
200 mL raisins plumped in hot water and drained paprika (optional)
125 mL thinly sliced green onions, same of celery parsley (optional)
75 mL olive oil 5 mL. lemon pepper
Lightly toss salad ingredients. Chill for one hour. Arrange on lettuce leaves; add a sprinkle of paprika and garnish with parsley, if desired.

Belated diet for Daddies

I meant to post this in time for Father's Day...but got waylaid. I think it can safely be said that in general (and there are always exceptions) women pay more attention to their diets than do men. Which is not to say that men don’t care about their health and nutritional status, it’s just not very high up on their list of priorities. They joke about giving up vegetables for lent, and refer to beer as one of the four food groups, but underneath it all, I think they really want to be in shape and as healthy as their significant others…they just don’t know how!

Part of the problem is that the media pays a whole lot more attention to women’s diets—probably because they know that women are more likely to pay attention. In honour of Father’s Day just past, then, I thought we’d talk about Dad’s and what they should and shouldn’t eat. So, if you’re a dad, if you have a dad, or are married to one, or if one day you hope to be a dad—this blog’s for you.

First off, the obvious: Canada’s Food Guide for Healthy Eating is meant for everyone, not just women and children. The advice to get the appropriate serving of whole grain breads and cereals, meat and alternatives, vegetables and fruit, and milk and milk products includes men. And it’s no joke that men very often don’t get enough of the last two groups. To that end I’m adding a recipe at the end of this blog that will help them get more of both groups…it’s a yogurt sauce that will even get men to like broccoli!

Food groups aside, what special needs do men have in the diet department that sometimes get overlooked? For one thing, they have a prostate gland and women don’t! Recent research has suggested that men with a low exposure to vitamin D might increase their risk of prostate cancer. And where do they get vitamin D? Ideally from the sun, but in Canada that can be really difficult from October to April. Food sources include milk and margarine (to which vitamin D is added) and lesser amounts in egg yolk and fatty fish. Most men just don’t get enough so you might want to include a bottle of vitamin D supplements for Dad. The supplement should be just vitamin D (not cod or halibut liver oil) and 1000 I.U.’s per tablet is the recommended amount per day unless there’s a medical reason for him not to take it (a doctor’s advice should be followed even when taking something as seemingly harmless as a vitamin supplement)

Is there something in his diet that should be reduced? Well, the science isn’t definitive, but there is growing evidence that too much linoleic acid in the diet may promote prostate cancer. Linoleic acid is an essential (you have to have it in your diet) fatty acid found predominately in vegetable oils like corn oil and sunflower oil. Notice that I said “too much”. We all need some linoleic acid, but with deep-fat frying and increased use of salad dressing, some people (and men) simply get too much. There are other possible downsides to excess linoleic acid like asthma, eczema, and age-related macular degeneration, but since we’re discussing men, we’ll leave it there.

How about men’s heart’s? While we know that women are not immune from heart disease, the statistics still indicate that men are more likely to fall victim to this disease, at least before age 75, when women catch up. I don’t think we can say enough about getting men to eat more fruits and vegetables and to avoid trans fatty acids (found in hard margarines, shortenings, hydrogenated vegetable oils). Dietary prevention of high blood pressure and stroke is thought to hinge on more fruits and vegetables plus three or more servings of milk products per day.
And that brings us back to Canada’s Food Guide and the recipe I promised…

Hot n Creamy Yogurt Sauce


1 ½ cups (375 mL) plain yogurt 1 tablespoon (15mL) butter
1 ½ cups (375 mL) chicken broth 3 garlic cloves, minced

In a bowl, mix yogurt and cornstarch until blended. Slowly stir in broth.

Heat butter in heavy saucepan over medium-low heat. Add garlic and cook for about one minute. Remove from heat. Stir in Yogurt mixture and mix very well. Return to medium-low heat and cook until sauce is hot but not boiling, stirring constantly. Cook over low heat for 3 to 5 minutes, stirring, until sauce is smooth and thickened to your taste. Season to taste with salt and pepper.
This sauce is great over vegetables or as an addition to a stew.

Enough is enough

WHEN DOES THE EVIDENCE JUSTIFY THE CLAIM?

One might as well ask “How high is high?” as to ask just when is there enough science to communicate the benefits of a particular product to the public. The answer, of course, is: “it depends”. In the case of making a claim for a food product the conditions on which the claims depend are vast. If the person or group making the claim is motivated by a sincere desire (albeit misguided) for the good of society and has no profit motive lurking in the background, then almost any claim can be made. Garlic prevents the common cold; ginseng improves the memory (or is that ginko biloba, I forget); ketchup prevents cancer….wait a minute—isn’t that true? So a group (Men Against Prostate Cancer) can say it; an individual health writer can state it; but Heinz had better not say it or they’re in big trouble.

In most western countries there are strict regulations against making a claim for the effect of a particular food on the body, no matter how strong the scientific evidence that such a claim is valid. The restrictions are loosening up somewhat so that now certain qualified claims may be made: “A diet rich in calcium might protect against the development of osteoporosis. Food X is rich in calcium” is a hybrid claim of a number of countries…but is the public well served by such restrictions? Yes and no.

Yes, because we know that if a person’s diet is made up for the most part of cakes and colas, then taking the occasional glass of milk is not likely to guarantee healthy bones well into their golden years. No, if the bureaucratic language fails to convince an otherwise healthful eater that this calcium-rich food is an important armament in the fight against brittle bones.

On the other hand, some foods are so praised by the media that they don’t have to make a claim. People have become so convinced through magazine, TV and newspaper articles of the value of omega-3 fatty acids that egg cartons need only mention that they contain the stuff and nothing more need be said. Free-range hens and the eggs thereof can demand a price double that of their cooped up sisters with nary a claim in sight, it being so obvious that happy hens and eggs make for better eating than their miserable counterparts.

The flip side of the argument is that sometimes no matter how persuasive the arguments for a particular food or food group, no matter how powerful the group endorsing it (governments, for example), it’s still a hard sell. Exhibit A in this case would be vegetables and fruit. These foods are still under-consumed by the vast majority of consumers despite the vigorous urging of government, health professionals and health agencies to have at least five servings a day. Milk products, conversely, get no such endorsement, in fact the opposite is often the case and paid advertisements are severely limited in the claims they can make. And therein lies the rub: the anti-dairy groups can and do make incredible claims against dairy foods, citing milk as the cause of everything from autism to zits. Freedom of speech laws protect these nay-sayers and the public is constantly bombarded with false information about the effect of milk and milk products on the human body.

What to do? Well, in several countries steps have been taken to persuade regulators that certain health and nutrition claims are valid and justified. These attempts have been met with various degrees of success, but always the efforts have been long and laborious. Often times the issue boils down to the volume of evidence necessary to make a case (dairy calcium and osteoporosis); in other cases the small amount of research is so persuasive that it’s amazing that the claim isn’t permitted immediately (dairy calcium and kidney stones). Other situations are such that just not enough people are interested ( dairy and gout reduction!). But in my view the most effective way to execute an end run around the health-claim regulations is to get the buy-in of the media. There is little doubt that the media are the gate-keepers at the trough of nutrition information. Are soy-product sales at an all-time high because of advertising regulations, or did the claims find acceptance because of interest stirred up by the media? Are omega-3s on everyone’s lips (literally and figuratively) because of health claims, or because every health writer and her cousin became convinced of their value? And who led the fight against trans fatty acids?

The $64.00 question

Back in the days when $64.00 actually meant something big there was a game show called the $64 Question in which contestants would try to answer various questions with various degrees of difficulty. Since school-days are now waning, I thought it might be fun and educational to deal with some of the burning nutrition questions that I’m most often asked, in the hope that the answers will help you readers in your quest for nutrition knowledge.

1. Should I be taking a fish-oil supplement? The answer, as you’ll see applying to many of the questions is: “it depends”. Are you a person who routinely eats fatty fish like salmon, tuna and mackerel, or is fish just one of those foods that you never, never eat. If the latter applies to you, then yes, it would be wise to take fish-oil supplements. And, incidentally, fish oil is better for you than flax oil because the rate at which the alpha linolenic acid in flax oil is converted into the important ingredients EPA and DHA is very slow. There’s an important qualifier here, however, and that is that the more fish oil one consumes, the greater is the need for vitamin E and its antioxidant activity. So make sure that your fish oil contains alpha-tocopherol (a form of vitamin E) or that you’re ingesting roughly 100 IUs of vitamin E per day, perhaps in your multi-vitamin pill.
2. Should I be concerned about the amount of polyunsaturated fatty acids/omega-6/linoleic acid I’m consuming? In a word: Yes. Especially if you’re not a fish eater or taker of fish-oil supplements (see above). Part of the problem is that the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 (fish oil) is crucial to health and as trans fats (hydrogenated vegetable oil/shortening) are taken out of manufactured foods (or home-made pies, for that matter), they are being replaced by oils rich in omega-6…causing further imbalance to an already top heavy ratio of these fats. I realize this may sound complicated, but the fact is that we need to be eating more fatty fish and less oils like corn, sunflower, safflower, soybean and the like. Olive oil and canola would be my choice when you have to use an oil. The other part of the problem is that, aside from this ratio business, excessive intake of linoleic acid on its own can pose serious health threats. A hundred years ago your great grandmother wasn’t cooking with vegetable oil for a very good reason: nobody could squeeze a corn cob. It wasn’t until technology came up with a way to express these oils that we started to consume them big time, and as the unwarranted fear of animal fats took hold, veggie oil consumption sky-rocketed. I’m not saying you should never use the stuff, but be conscious of how much you’re using in things like frying, salad dressings, deep-fried foods and the like.
3. Do I really need 8 glasses of water per day. Answer: NO. In fact you don’t need any water per day…what you need is the equivalent of 8 cups (250 mL) of fluid on a daily basis and that can come from a variety of beverages like milk, fruit juice, even tea and coffee, plus fruit and vegetables. Even bread and meat and cheese contain some fluid. A recent study showed that, in fact, milk was better at re-hydrating athletes and the elderly than the so-called sports drinks. So, yes, fluid is very important, but you don’t need to be beating a path to the bathroom to get rid of those eight glasses of water.
4. Is sugar evil and should I replace it with more natural foods like honey or maple syrup? Another “it depends”. If your diet is based on Twinkies and Coke (which I doubt, since you wouldn’t be reading this blog) then for you the word “evil” may well apply. For the rest of us, sugar supplies energy (read calories), makes it easier to get some foods down, like oat bran, and in general sweetens our life a bit. You can have two much of a good thing, however, and that’s when trouble starts. As for foods like honey or maple syrup, they provide different flavours and many people enjoy them, but they’re still basically sugar. I’ve heard the argument that honey is better because it contains nutrients and that’s true, but unless you’re a bee, the nutrients won’t do you much good since they’re present in such miniscule amounts.
5. Is all the hype about tea warranted? Not quite. It is true that tea contains antioxidants and can make a contribution to the diet in that sense, but a lousy diet plus tea is still a lousy diet. In other words, in order for tea to deliver its best shot, you need to be minding your p’s and q’s in other areas of healthy eating. The “Cliff Claven” in me (remember Cheers?) wants to point out that a little known fact is that heart disease and cancer are the main killers in China, which also has among the greatest tea consumption per capita. Other big tea-consuming regions are Scotland and England, which have among the highest incidence of heart disease in the world. Certainly tea is a fine beverage, helps with our fluid intake and, as stated, is chock full of antioxidants, but don’t expect miracles.

If it's not animal fat, don't eat it!

Granted, that headline is a bit sensational…smacks of tabloid stories. But it’s not quite as tongue-in-cheek as it might at first seem. I recently attended a nutrition and metabolism symposium with the title: “Saturated Fat and Heart Disease: What’s the Evidence?” and believe me, according to the international experts assembled for this meeting, the evidence is simply not there. In fact, these researchers came out four-square behind a low-carbohydrate, higher-fat diet not just for weight loss/control, but for many other health reasons as well. A lot of the focus was on the metabolic syndrome, so-called because of the combination of symptoms it entails: high blood pressure, elevated triglycerides, low HDL levels (the good cholesterol), insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes.

The first speaker addressed the issue of what medical students are being taught and the inconsistency between biochemical facts and commonly accepted recommendations of various health agencies. In other words, what science has shown to be factual, doesn’t seem to have yet, trickled down to the medical profession. We’ve known for a long time that low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets will lower the bad (LDL) cholesterol, but they also lower HDLs and raise triglycerides…not a good thing. He stated that saturated fat is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or even by the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. An awful lot of research evidence was shown to support his theory; the problem is, however, that the average person doesn’t see that evidence and popular newspapers seem to report only the studies that support popularly held opinion.

The next speaker gave a full-blown review of all the evidence around saturated fat and heart disease. And here I’m about to introduce a concept that might be foreign to some of you, but remember: thirty years ago most people couldn’t say the word ‘cholesterol’ let alone understand its alleged implication for heart disease. The concept is simply this: Yes, LDL (low-density lipoprotein) is the ‘bad’ cholesterol, but it turns out that there is ‘bad’ LDL (sort of the bad, bad cholesterol), and good LDL. To be more specific, LDL comes in different types. There is what’s known as small, dense LDL particles (bad), and then there are larger, buoyant (less dense, or fluffy) LDL particles (good). Still with me? You might want to read that sentence again…small, dense is bad; large, ‘fluffy’ is good. And guess what: Saturated fats will increase your level of LDLs, but it’s mostly with the large, buoyant type that doesn’t lead to heart disease. This becomes especially relevant when people are encouraged to replace the animal fats in their diet with carbohydrates. An excess of carbohydrate in the diet has been associated with increased risk for heart disease, especially in women. Just remember you read it here first!

Another presenter focused on the way in which carbohydrate, directly or indirectly through the effect of insulin, controls how we handle excess calories. The carbs that we eat actually regulate the breakdown of fat and affect the relation between the intake of saturated fat and what ends up circulating in the blood stream. Essentially, research is suggesting that some form of carbohydrate restriction is a candidate to be the preferred dietary strategy for cardiovascular health over and above keeping a healthy weight. I strongly suspect that in the future your dietitian will recommend a specific diet plan based on your genetic profile. In the meantime, there’s little doubt that avoiding refined carbohydrates is a good idea. I remember my Dad going on a diet about fifty years ago called the “DEAMOF” diet: Don’t Eat Anything Made of Flour. This was before I was particularly interested in nutrition, (my interest then was mostly boys), but did notice that he lost a bunch of weight. He basically followed that plan the rest of his life and lived into his eighties.

I think we’ve all to a greater or lesser degree fallen prey to the notion “you are what you eat”. Taking the concept further, we believe that if we consume more cholesterol, the levels in our blood will rise; if we consume more fat, we’ll be fatter; and if we eat less saturated fat, then the amount of ‘bad’ fats roaming around in our blood stream will go down. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to work that way. A decade or so ago an endocrinologist by the name of Diana Schwarzbein came out with a book called “The Schwarzbein Principle” in which she reconsidered the treatment of persons with type 2 diabetes. She had encouraged them, as was the accepted treatment, to stick to a low-fat, high carbohydrate diet rich in grains, pasta, rice, vegetables and fruit, and very little fat. After monitoring their progress and noting that they weren’t doing very well, she came to the conclusion that since all carbs are recognized as sugar by the body, she was basically giving sugar to diabetics. So she changed her patients diet, strictly reducing their intake of carbohydrates, increasing the amount of protein they consumed, and allowing some fat…even animal fat. Their blood sugar levels began to stabilize, and when more fat was added, their blood sugar levels improved even more. Applying her methods to a wider study group, Schwarzbein found that when people cut down on carbs and increased protein (from meat, poultry and fish, especially fatty fish like salmon and mackerel) and fat their overall health, including weight control, improved. In a variation on “Don’t try this at home”, I hasten to point out that any diabetics reading this should not change their diet until they’ve consulted with their dietitian or doctor.

I realize that this all sounds a bit Atkins-ish, but in my view the Atkins diet got a bit of a bum rap…especially regarding vegetable intake. Many who have followed it have told me that their intake of veggies actually increased. High-water vegetables like cauliflower, wax and green beans, tomatoes, zucchini, asparagus, spinach, Swiss chard, fennel, broccoli and turnip are actually encouraged, as are blueberries, blackberries, raspberries and strawberries. It’s tough to believe that dietary advice to eat less fat and more carbs has been wrong; it must be right since so many health authorities have insisted on it. Yet, when you listen to those with an opposite opinion, and look at the scientific evidence that it was the high carb intake and not the fat that has led to heart attacks and other diseases, it pretty much makes sense.We all know that current wisdom always seems to be unimpeachable, even as those thoughts are being turned on their ear. But we also know that many of the accepted truths of earlier times have turned out to be incorrect…why should our beliefs be any different?

Calories: use them or wear them

Of all the bits of nutrition misinformation that annoy the heck out of me, perhaps the most annoying is the intentional misuse of the term “energy”—as in “high energy drink”, or “quick energy bar”. Energy actually refers to “Calorie”…would you knowingly buy a product that boasted it was high in Calories? I thought not. Discussion of Calories and energy makes me realize that many people don’t really understand just what a Calorie is and why an excess of them can make them fat. A Calorie is a unit of heat, after all, so why should eating heat contribute to weight?

A Calorie is a much broader (if you’ll pardon the expression) concept than just heat. A Calorie is an amount of any kind of energy. We could measure the energy of a speeding Ferrari if we wanted to. Energy is whatever makes things happen; call it “oomph” if you like. It comes in many forms: Physical motion (think Ferrari); chemical energy (think dynamite); nuclear energy (think reactor); electrical energy (think battery); gravitational energy (think waterfall); and yes, the most common form of all, heat.

It’s not heat that ends up on your hips, it’s stored energy—the amount of energy-for-living that your body gets by metabolizing food. And if metabolizing those French-fries produces more energy than you use up by getting off the couch, your body will store the excess as fat.

So then the next question is: how much energy is a Calorie and why do different foods “contain” (that is produce or yield) various numbers of Calories when metabolized? Well, since heat is the most common and familiar form of energy, the Calorie is defined in terms of heat—precisely how much heat it takes to raise the temperature of water. Specifically, the term is used by nutritionists and dietitians and is the amount of heat it takes to raise the temperature of a kilogram of water by 1 degree Celsius (actually a kilocalorie, also referred as a Calorie with a capital c). For Americans, who stay with the ancient and clumsy English system of measurement, a Calorie is the amount of heat it takes to raise the temperature of about 2 ½ cups of water by 1 degree Fahrenheit. For example, if you want to bring 2 ½ cups (20 oz) of water from 70 degrees up to the boiling point (212 degrees) you’d need to add 212 minus 70, or 142 calories of heat. I hope that’s clear!

Different foods, as everyone knows, provide us with different amounts of energy. The Calorie contents of various foods were originally found by actually burning them in an oxygen-filled container immersed in water and then measuring by how many degrees the water was heated (the apparatus is called a Calorimeter). You could do the same thing with a piece of apple pie to find out how much energy, or how many Calories, it releases. But is the amount of energy released when pie is burned in a laboratory the same as the amount of energy released when it is metabolized in the body? Remarkably, it is…even though metabolism releases its energy much more slowly, and thankfully without flames (heartburn doesn’t count).

The overall results are exactly the same: Food plus oxygen produces energy, and it’s a principle of chemistry that if the initial and final substances are the same, then the energy change is the same regardless of how the reaction took place. The only problem is that foods aren’t digested and oxidized completely in the body, so we actually get out of them somewhat less than their total energy content. On average, we wind up getting 9 calories per gram out of fat and 4 calories per gram each from both proteins and carbohydrates. So instead of running into the lab and setting fire to every food in sight, nutritionists just add up the number of grams of fat, protein and carbohydrate in a food and multiply by 9 or 4. You can do the same thing to check whether the calories listed on a food item are actually the same as that claimed by the manufacturer.

Your normal basal metabolic rate—the minimum amount of energy you use just to keep on ticking—that is by breathing, circulating your blood, digesting your food, repairing your tissues, keeping your body temperature normal and keeping your liver and kidneys and the like doing their jobs—is about 1 calorie per hour for every kilogram (2.2 pounds) that you weigh. That’s about 1,600 calories per day for a 150- pound male. But that can vary quite a bit depending on sex (women about 10 per cent less…wouldn’t you know), age, health, body size and shape, and so on.

Your bottom line (no pun intended) is how your intake of energy above and beyond your basal metabolic rate compares with your expenditure of energy by activity. For an average healthy adult man the usual recommendation is for an approximate daily intake of 2,700 calories and 2,000 for women—more for jocks and less for couch potatoes. As for the often-heard conundrum, “I eat a pound of fudge and I swear I gain four pounds”, the fact is that the most fat a person can gain by eating even a pound of 100 percent pure fat is only one pound. But I don’t recommend it.

Bearing in mind that 1gram of fat yields 9 Calories, then 454 grams (one pound) will yield 9x454 or 4,086 Calories. To allow for variations and for ease of calculations, nutritionists usually say that to burn a pound of fat one must consume 3500 Calories less than is expended. In other words, to lose a pound of fat in a week, you would need to deprive yourself of 3500 Calories over seven days, or 500 Calories per day. So, you can either increase your activity by 500 Calories or consume 500 Calories less than you need. If you need to gain weight (not the usual situation, but it does occur), then you must do the opposite.
In either case, be mindful of the fact that short of particular drugs (and caffeine is a drug), no food is going to give you energy that doesn’t involve Calories.

The raw food conundrum

There’s been a lot of fuss lately about so-called “movements” in the area of food and nutrition. There’s the “slow-food “ movement (folks think that’s good), the “organic-food” movement (nutritionally no better, but if it makes you more comfortable, OK), and the “raw-food” movement (at best, a load of hooey; at worst, dangerous). The theory behind the raw-food fetish is that food contains enzymes necessary for their digestion; when you raise the temperature around these foods (that is, cook them), the argument is that you thereby destroy the enzymes and thus render the food incapable of delivering its nutrients to your body. Worse than that, it’s claimed, the foods rot inside you and are then deposited as fat on your unwitting thighs. The hogwash contained therein is refuted simply by the fact that the body itself provides all the enzymes necessary for digestion. End of story.

The potential harm that will befall an adherent of the raw-food philosophy (and I’ve seen a famous model wax eloquent on the subject, forgetting that being beautiful doesn’t make one a nutrition specialist) is, of course, exposure to deadly pathogens. Never mind the notion that raw veggies are always better for you; they aren’t. When carrots and tomatoes, for example, are cooked, their cells are ruptured and their most important nutrients are rendered more available to the body. This isn’t to suggest that you should avoid raw veggies; it simply points out that what seems logical doesn’t always hold true in nutrition.

Bacteria, however, are another question. And here I’m going to devote myself to the topic of raw milk…an issue that keeps raising its ugly head. I’m sure you’ve all heard of dairy farmers and their families who have consumed milk from their own farm without benefit of pasteurization, and have never suffered ill effects. There are two possible explanations here: 1.: they’ve developed an immunity to the various pathogens present in their herd, and 2.: they’ve been lucky…much like the guy who never wears a seat belt and hasn’t had the need for it since he’s never been in an accident.

Raw-milk advocates claim it to be more healthful than pasteurized milk and say that the heat process destroys nutrients. Like most fraudulent claims about nutrition, there’s a kernel of truth here. Modern high-temperature, short-time pasteurization barely affects nutrients, but it can diminish the amount of the most fragile vitamins in milk, thiamine and ascorbic acid, or vitamin C. As it happens, milk contains very little of these two vitamins to begin with and their loss is essentially inconsequential. Those consuming a varied diet based on their country's Food Guide will have no problem getting adequate amounts of these vitamins from other food sources. As for the many other nutrients in milk, the pasteurization process has no significant detrimental effects on them or on their absorption.

Even under the best of sanitary dairy practices, disease-producing organisms may enter raw milk accidentally from environmental and human sources. Milk and milk products are pasteurized as an additional safeguard of the consumer’s health. Basically pasteurization is the heating of raw milk in properly approved and operated equipment at a sufficiently high temperature for a specified length of time to destroy pathogenic bacteria. The process also destroys yeasts and moulds and inactivates most enzymes that might cause spoilage through the development of off-flavours. In a nutshell, the, pasteurization makes milk bacteriologically safe and increases its keeping quality.

A relatively new kid on the block is the process of ultra-high-temperature treatment, or UHT. This method involves thermal processing at or above 138 degrees Celsius for at least two seconds before or after packaging. UHT ensures the destruction of all micro-organisms with the possible exception of non-pathogenic, highly heat-resistant spores. It does all this without significantly changing the nutritive value of the milk, and as a bonus, the milk doesn’t need to be refrigerated until it’s opened. I always keep a couple of cartons of UHT milk on hand in case, for some reason, we run out of the usual stuff.

The latest entry in the milk-purification process is something called micro-filtration, in which all bacteria, even the corpses of bacteria destroyed by pasteurization, are removed.
There are many other aspects regarding milk purity and the maintenance thereof that we could discuss, but since this is a column on the folly of the raw-food movement, I’ll save that for another time.

Some people have questioned me about the advisability of steak tartar and sushi, both of which have grown in popularity. Regarding the steak tartar, if is to be consumed in a restaurant, then you don’t need me to tell you that it should be an establishment whose credentials for cleanliness are above reproach. Incidentally, the reason that one can eat steak raw, but never hamburger, is that the former offers much less surface area on which bacteria can grow. Hamburger should always (especially if being served to young children) be cooked to the well-done stage. As for sushi (more properly sashimi), the rules for a restaurant that knows what it’s doing still apply. If you want to prepare it at home, then the fish should be well frozen before hand so that any unwelcome critters (worms) will be killed. Freezing won’t kill bacteria, but if you’ve bought the fish fresh from a reputable dealer, that shouldn’t be a problem. Despite the popularity of raw oysters (and I love them), I have to advise against eating them raw. You might be lucky enough to avoid illness, but you never know. Broiled with a bit of spinach, cheese and Tabasco sauce, they taste almost as good.
Fruits and vegetables that are to be eaten raw should always be washed beforehand; even if they’re to be sliced prior to peeling, you should wash them, since the knife can carry a gazillion little bugs with it on its way through the pulp. The bottom line is that nature is not always as benign as we would like her to be. Common sense plays an important role here, and the notion that all our food should be raw just doesn’t make any…sense, that is.

What do consumers really want?

Tough question. In today’s politically correct climate consumers frequently confuse “what they want” with “what they’re expected to want”. They might actually want barbecued spare ribs, but will claim they want a salad because veggies are “good for them” and in their mind, the ribs will be frowned on. It has become increasingly evident that what consumers want—or think they want –is greatly influenced by media reports of what constitutes “healthy” eating. A leading nutritionist in Britain provoked controversy by suggesting that people who don’t eat red meat are risking their health. Professor Robert Pickard, director general of the British Nutrition Foundation said that a vegetarian diet was not natural for mankind…man is an omnivore. And he has a point: evolutionary science tells us that man emerged from an insect-eating group of mammals whose adaptability was greatly accelerated by the adoption of an omnivorous diet. Man’s teeth, jaws and gut have evolved to deal with a mixture of meat and vegetables.

In my view, meat definitely has a part to play in the human diet. It provides iron for the blood, vitamins for over-all health, and proteins and fatty acids for growth. Those on a meatless diet, unless they’re taking supplements, are courting deficiencies of iron, zinc and copper to name but a few.

What consumers really want, of course, is excellent health…and they expect their diet to give it to them. For many North Americans death is not an inevitability, but rather an option, and they lap up the latest evidence that what they eat will help them foil the grim reaper. The straw on the verge of breaking the camel’s back in this case is the notion that foods of animal origin, especially animal fat, will lead to elevated cholesterol levels, clogged arteries, and premature death due to heart disease. Despite accumulating evidence to the contrary, the current mind-set (among most health professionals as well as consumers) is that animal fats are the cause of atherosclerosis. In fact, it is now thought by many leading nutritionists that those saturated fatty acids in animal fats, which elevate LDL levels are offset by others, which elevate HDL(the good cholesterol). In addition, there are now numerous studies indicating that those who consume animal protein and fat (as opposed to those who avoid it or have extremely low intakes) have a significantly lower risk of stroke.

So there you have it. Do I believe that a consumer who wants to follow a meatless diet can be healthy? Yes—if the person is knowledgeable, committed, and takes supplements. Do I think that a consumer who wants to follow their instincts and consume an omnivorous diet can be equally healthy? Absolutely they can, if they remember the principles of moderation and make most of their choices from the four main food groups rather than from the “extras”. The existence of vegetarianism no more refutes the universal preference for animal foods than the fasts of holy men refute a preference for food over hunger. Meat is said to have become a part of the human diet after the Flood, when all plant life had been destroyed: “Every creature that lives and moves shall be food for you” (Genesis 9:3). In fact it’s only in Genesis, before Eve ate the apple, that we find reference to both animals and humans eating nothing but fruit and vegetables and grass. Paradise might have been vegetarian, but this world is omnivorous.

In many ways, what consumers want is to have their cake and eat it too. They want the pleasure of foods that are deemed unhealthful, but they also want to die as late as possible, as youthful as possible. That’s what nutritionists want for them as well…and it seems that the best way to do that is by following your country's Food Guide to Healthy Eating, getting enough exercise and not smoking. Consumers sometimes confuse what they want with what they need…and what they need right now is some solid information about the value of an omnivorous diet.

Clarifying omega-3: something fishy here

It’s time to tackle the job of unravelling some of the mysteries surrounding nutrition. It always comes as a bit of a surprise to me that nutrition has become mysterious, but when people are buying exercise clothing made with seaweed because they believe that seaweed will somehow confer enhanced vitamin status, then something has to be done about it.

So, first things first. No amount of seaweed woven into your garments is going to translate into vitamin absorption through your skin. To achieve optimal nutritional status, you have to eat properly…and possibly take a couple of supplements. Notice the word “possibly”. You’ve read my ranting about vitamin D in previous blogs so I’ll make this brief and to the point: if you’re not wintering in the tropics and exposing your body to fifteen minutes of un-compromised sun exposure (no sun screen) every day, then you should be taking at least a daily 1000 IU supplement of vitamin D. Sunlight and fortified milk are your only reliable sources of this vitamin and even if you drink a litre of milk every day you’ll only get 400 IU. A word to the wise should be sufficient.

The next supplement I think you should consider is one containing omega-3 fatty acids. Actually, it’s not the omega-3s that you need so much as the DHA and EPA (docosahexaenoic acid and eicosahexaenoic acid; aren’t you glad you asked) that are derived from marine sources. Notice again that I said “consider”: perhaps you’re among the very few people that routinely (two to three times per week) eat fatty fish like mackerel, salmon, herring and sardines. You might also consume eggs and dairy products that are enriched with marine-source omega-3, in which case you probably don’t need a supplement.

But now another wrinkle adds to the confusion…what is the source of your omega-3s?
It seems that some food companies are failing to distinguish between the different types of omega-3s: DHA, EPA and, a third entry ALA (alpha-linolenic acid). EPA and DHA are obtained from marine sources like the aforementioned oily fish (DHA can also be derived from microalgae). ALA, on the other hand, comes from plant sources such as flaxseed. So, you well might ask, what’s the big deal. And the big deal is simply this: EPA and DHA are significantly more bio-available (ready to be absorbed by the body) when they come from fish than when they come from plants. While flaxseed is certainly a “source” of omega-3, the ALA it contains is simply a precursor to DHA, in other words, it has to be converted by the body before it can be used, and in that conversion process a lot of the benefits are lost. Some labels simply refer to omega-3 without stating the source or type. In one example, an analysis of a product found it contained less than 0.002 per cent EPA and DHA. The type of omega-3 found in fatty fish is the best kind. There’s very little doubt that EPA and DHA are vital for our hearts, brains and immune systems. Some food labels are mixing together things that have different biological effects. Omega-3 from vegetable sources is very different and doesn’t have the same health benefits. Whether ALA has any benefit aside from its limited convertibility to DHA and EPA is a horse of a different colour. You should aim for roughly 450 mg of DHA/EPA combined, per day. A serving (3 ounces) of fatty fish will give you about 2000 mg, hence the need for consumption only 2-3 times per week.

Well, having said all that, just what benefits might one expect from these omega-3s? As I’ve mentioned, there is strong evidence that they will help the heart, brain and immune system. There is recent research showing that omega-3s are associated with reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis, lowered triglyceride levels, lowered blood pressure, and protection against arrhythmia. In addition there has been shown to be an association between increased intake of omega-3s and reduced risk of colorectal cancer and depression. There’s even evidence that intake of omega-3s can reduce the risk of age-related macular degeneration.
Some of these findings might in fact be related to the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3, which has been discussed in this space already. The message is clear: try not to consume too much vegetable oil, and if you don’t eat fatty fish take fish oil supplements. And always read the labels!

Everything I like is either illegal, immoral, or fattening

This is a good news/bad news blog: the good news is that, contrary to the notion that somehow everything we like is bad for us, chocolate is actually beneficial. The bad news is that chocolates aren’t!

Notice the ‘s’ on the end of chocolate: therein lies the tale. Chocolate (and not all chocolate, only the dark kind) has been found to confer numerous health benefits, primarily because of the antioxidants it contains. The darker the chocolate, the higher the percentage of flavinols, etc., the better off you’ll be. Within reason! There’s a big caveat here: chocolate contains calories. No big surprise there, but it’s important to bear in mind that recommendations to consume dark chocolate don’t mean that you should scarf down the whole candy store. A small piece (30 grams or one ounce) of dark chocolate every day may be just what the doctor ordered.

A recent long-term study of 470 elderly men (average age 72; I hardly call that elderly) found that regular consumption of flavinol-rich chocolate decreased their risk of death from cardiovascular disease by 50 percent…and that’s no small potatoes. The researchers measured cocoa intake (not chocolate intake…bear that in mind) and found that those who consumed the greatest amount of cocoa (more than 2.3 grams per day) had significantly better blood-pressure readings than those who consumed the least (less than 0.36 grams per day). The cocoa was supplied in the form of chocolates, cocoa-based desserts and drinks, sandwich fillings and even supplements. They followed the men for fifteen years (imagine having chocolate supplied to you for 15 years) and of the 314 who died during that time, cardiovascular disease killed 152 of them. The big cocoa eaters had half the chance of being among those 152. Not only that, the men with the higher cocoa consumption were 40 percent less likely to die from anything during that period. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you can eat all the cocoa you want, and you’re eventually going to die from something.

Speculation as to what is in cocoa that provides this protection pretty much boils down to the flavinols. Previous research has shown that when the diet is rich in flavinols there is an increase in blood vessal opening called vasodilation, and the cells that line the blood vessels are better behaved. Lower blood pressure was definitely one of the benefits of cocoa consumption. What’s doubly interesting is that there is also research showing that regular milk consumption (three glasses per day) will also lower blood pressure. Who would have guessed that a cup of hot cocoa was a health drink!

But what about the fat in chocolate—a good deal of it being saturated? That’s true—and it brings up an interesting area for discussion. As it turns out, one of the major saturated fatty acids in chocolate is a little beauty called stearic acid. And wadda ya know, stearic acid is one of the predominant saturated fatty acids in beef fat. Stearic acid has no appreciable impact on serum cholesterol, so chocolate is home free heart-health wise. Too bad beef fat can’t be cut the same slack—but that’s a subject for another blog. Having said all that, fat is still fat, and still contains nine calories per gram, which is why it’s still a good idea not to overdo it on the chocolate.

Now then, what about the chocolates with an “s” part of the good news/bad news report? Simply put, when chocolate makers make chocolates they often put in a whole lot of stuff besides cocoa. Sugar, naturally enough, heads the list and isn’t all that surprising an ingredient since most palates prefer a little sweet with their cocoa. Unfortunately, the second ingredient can be hydrogenated coconut oil. Frequent readers of this blog will know that anything with the term “hydrogenated” attached to it is a no-no, but here we have a double whammy since coconut oil is 92 percent saturated. The icing on the cake, so to speak, is that most chocolates (usually the less expensive kind) have less cocoa than desirable in terms of making a significant antioxidant contribution and, to add insult to injury, they give you a hefty dose of trans fatty acids. (On reading this, everyone is supposed to shudder).

Need I say more? The bottom line here is that reasonable amounts of dark chocolate (with at least 70% cocoa) is a wise health investment. If the Forest Gump in you wants a box of chocolates, read the label and pass up the ones with hydrogenated vegetable oil. As for chocolate bars, remember that processing can destroy some of the antioxidants and all of the aforementioned issues about trans fats still apply. If dark chocolate is your choice, then indulge yourself a bit and if someone scolds you for eating chocolate, remind them that you’re only doing it for medicinal reasons!

Milking your diet for all it's worth

As some who read this blog might know, I used to be employed by the Dairy Farmers of Canada as their Director of Nutrition. Because of that role I was a bit reluctant to write specifically about dairy products, concerned that some might view me as biased towards them. That’s possibly true, but my job required me to read all of the research (both positive and negative) about dairy and that led me to be especially knowledgeable about their role in diet. My point here, and I do have one, is that it’s a disservice to readers to ignore this food group because of a potential misunderstanding about my motives. This blog, therefore, will cover the latest research on dairy, particularly as it relates to the report on “Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer” from the American Institute of Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund (AICR/WCRF)


Colon Cancer

The evidence is very persuasive and the distinguished AICR/WCRF Expert Panel concluded that higher milk and calcium intakes may help reduce the risk of colon cancer. On average, Canadian adults consume only half of the recommended two servings per day…and my personal belief (based on the research I’ve seen) is that they should be having at least three servings. The bottom line (no pun intended) is that if you care about your colon you should make sure that milk or milk products are part of each meal. The big guns in the nutrition game suspect that it’s the calcium in dairy that is so important in colon cancer prevention, but other possible players are vitamin D, sphingolipids and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). While it’s certainly possible that calcium from any source (say, sardines or kale) would be just as effective, they don’t contain those other factors, not to mention the fact that even sardines and kale lovers don’t eat those foods three times a day.

Breast Cancer

The main message from the report is that obesity is a major contributor to cancer risk, especially breast cancer. The report therefore emphasizes the importance of maintaining a healthy weight. There is an impressive amount of research indicating that women who have consumed three servings of dairy since childhood have two things going for them breast-wise: 1) they’re more likely to keep their weight in check, and 2) they have a lower risk of breast cancer. I’ve occasionally heard the comment that Japanese women have a low risk of breast cancer and they don’t drink milk .In the first place, Japanese are the highest per capita consumers of yogurt in the world, and secondly, although the risk of breast cancer is low, there is research showing that women dairy consumers have an even lower risk than their non-dairy consuming counterparts. Genetics most likely has a part to play as well. Vitamin D comes to the fore again, as evidence continues to mount that women with a greater exposure to this vitamin (either from sunlight, diet or supplements) are at reduced risk for breast cancer. Most experts agree that daily intake of the “sunshine” vitamin should be at least 1000 I Us (International Units). If you’re going to take a supplement (and I think you should) then make sure that the supplement doesn’t also contain vitamin A, since too much of that vitamin is not so kind to your bones.

Other Cancers

Perhaps the most controversial of cancers as related to dairy consumption is cancer of the prostate. There are over 70 published studies that address this topic and overall the data indicate no association between consuming the recommended levels of dairy foods and increased prostate cancer risk. To date, only one randomized clinical trial has been conducted on the effect of calcium intake on prostate cancer, and it showed no effect of calcium on prostate cancer risk. In fact, this study showed a slight non-significant decrease in risk with calcium supplementation. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I must point out that vitamin D supplementation is thought by many to be protective.
Both ovarian and kidney cancer were found to have no association with dairy consumption but, interestingly enough, there is a fair amount of evidence that milk consumers have a lower risk of bladder cancer.
In summary then, the best advice in terms of reducing g your risk of cancer would be to follow a healthy diet based on Canada’s Food Guide, be active, maintain a healthy weight…and, my personal recommendation: take a vitamin D supplement.

Food and psychology: why we eat the things we do

More than one hundred years ago the American writer and physician Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his Medical Essays, wrote:
“I cannot help believing that medical curative treatment will by and by resolve itself in a great measure into modifications of food swallowed. The effects of milk and vegetables in the diet, of cod liver oil, are only hints of what will be accomplished when we have learned to discover what elements are deficient or in excess in chronic disease and the best way of correcting the abnormal condition”.

Well, Holmes was no dietitian but, aside from the cod liver oil (and I discount that only because it’s too rich in vitamin A), he was certainly on to something. The interesting thing is that more than a century after Holmes wrote these prophetic words, we live in a time when the vast majority of North Americans have both the means and the knowledge to insure that they are well nourished, but in many cases fail to do so. The nagging question then is, why is this so? And, of course, as is the case with many complicated questions, there are many, many possible answers.

Let’s first look at the alarming increase in “junk food” consumption. And we must be careful with our definitions here: not all food that gets the popular definition of “junk” truly fits into the category. Pizza, for example, is often referred to with this derogatory term, but in fact usually contains some of each of the four food groups. For our purposes today we’ll define a junk food as one that delivers proportionately way more calories than it does nutrients. So why do we eat so much of it…aside from the perception that it tastes good?

A study out of Britain actually found that people use food treats to stave off feelings of insecurity. The survey found that 63 percent of adults reported their self-esteem is affected when they feel overweight or out of shape but, ironically, 52 percent treated those feelings by eating chocolate! Forty-two percent said they might turn to cookies, cakes and pastries, and the same number admitted seeing fatty snacks like chips and other salty crunchies as the answer to their woes.

Dr. Peter Rowan, consulting psychiatrist at the Priory Hospital Roehampton was quoted as saying that “These people are desperate to fill the void created by loneliness, low self-esteem, depression and insecurity. You could describe this as being hungry for love”.

Certainly in my 40 plus years of being a dietitian I have had patients who would fit this description, but I’ve had more patients who seemed to over-eat out of boredom or simply because it was there…and good-tasting food is terribly seductive. The survey equated eating junk food to a form of self-medication because of the instant feelings of comfort and reward it delivers. If this is true, then we have to find a way to help people reward themselves in ways that won’t harm their health. Unfortunately we’ve learned from infancy to associate food with love. This lesson doesn’t diminish over time, in fact the gift of food is used as a reward throughout our lives. Food is central to all celebrations, even funerals. Food has become extremely detached from the requirements of nutrition and health…it is an end in itself. I think it was Moliere who wrote that we must eat to live, not live to eat…but the latter seems to be exactly what we’re doing.

So, what to do? One suggestion (not always met with great enthusiasm, but nonetheless valid) is to use exercise as a reward. More accurately, the feeling of accomplishment one gets after doing a round of exercise or jogging a mile or doing some type of workout, can serve as a reward. People have often asked me if I experience the so-called “runner’s high” and my response is yes, as soon as I’ve stopped; it feels so good to have it finished. And it does do wonders for the self-esteem. You don’t need to join a gym; you don’t need fancy equipment; all you need is the will to achieve a better level of health and get moving. You also don’t need to run; walking is great. In the words of some company’s slogan: “Just Do It”.

Another approach is to a) not have junk food in the house and b) have healthful foods handy that are satisfying and tasty. Bearing in mind that “one man’s meat is another man’s poison”, I’m hesitant to tell you what kind of snacks I find tempting, but my suggestions might give you a few ideas. I always have almonds and dried cranberries on hand…they make a great mid-morning snack. Mid-afternoon usually finds me dipping some raw veggies (carrot sticks, celery, peppers etc which I have ready in the fridge) in a yoghurt dip (tzatziki) (which you can buy ready made) and in the evening I munch on chopped up dried figs and walnuts. As I said, peoples tastes differ, so figure out what healthful combination you might find satisfying and go for it.

In terms of meal-time choices, one of the most common complaints I get from people is that although they understand that fruits and vegetables are extremely important in their diet, they get frustrated by the waste incurred when they inadvertently end up with some unidentifiable blob of green in the back of the refrigerator…another veggie that got left uneaten. If this is a problem for you, then I need to emphasize that frozen veggies are every bit as nutritious as fresh and they have the advantage of not going bad (unless there’s a power failure!) They’re quick to prepare, no wasted leaves, etc., no chopping and dicing, and with new flash-freezing technology, almost as tasty as fresh.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’ll refer once again to the value of Canada’s Food Guide to Healthy Eating. Make sure you’re getting at least the minimum from each of the four food groups, cut way down on the junk food choices, and pretty soon there will be neither deficiencies or excesses in your almost perfect diet. I say “almost perfect” because I demand perfection of no one; least of all myself!

Fed Up With Carbohydrate

With all the controversy these days around low-carb diets, high carb diets…and diets in general, I think it’s high time we discuss another entry into the fray: the low-glycemic diet. But first we need to explain just what glycemia and the glycemic index are. Glycemia refers to the amount of sugar in the blood, and the glycemic index (GI) is a ranking of foods based on how much influence eating them will have on the sugar level in your blood compared to another food (usually a slice of white bread). In other words, it measures the rate at which various foods are digested and then end up as glucose in your blood. Some foods have very little impact and are termed “low-GI, while others can cause your blood sugar levels to sky-rocket and hence are called high GI.

So what does all this have to do with you and your weight and your overall health? Well, as it turns out, maybe quite a lot. It was back in 1981 that Professor David Jenkins and his group from the University of Toronto first published a list of the GI value for 62 foods. The information was first (and still) thought to be useful for diabetics, and in fact is currently being used to educate patients in diabetes education centres. The concept has been found to be very useful in helping diabetics keep their blood sugar levels under control…and now there is a good amount of evidence that a low GI diet may be helpful in keeping weight under control as well.

The reasoning behind this notion is that many people with a weight problem actually have a condition called insulin resistance. This, in fact, is part of the rationale behind the Atkins diet. Dr. Atkins’ approach, however, was to lump all carbohydrates together and try and get his patients to have a very low intake of what he considered to be the truly “fattening” foods. The jury is still out on the long-term effectiveness and safety of the diet, but I bet you know at least one person who has experienced successful weight loss by following the program. Where the low- GI diet differs is that it doesn’t outlaw all carbohydrates, just the ones that cause significant elevation of the blood sugar level. And that approach does seem to be a happy medium…those who opt for it are able to lower their insulin levels (as with the Atkins-type program), but they can eat what dietitians refer to as healthy carbohydrates: fruits, vegetables, whole grain breads, cereals, brown or converted rice and pasta.

So, just as we have fats labelled “good” fats and “bad” fats (not always correctly, I might add), now we’re in the era of the good and bad carb. The lower the GI of a particular food, the “better” it is. We can’t ignore the fact that a low-GI food usually has fewer calories, and that high GI foods are often over consumed, leading to excess caloric intake. But whatever the reason, the low glycemic diet usually works…and without the hand-wringing that accompanies Atkins, due to its perceived lack of fruit and vegetables.

Now, you’re asking for a list of low-glycemic foods…and space doesn’t permit an exhaustive review, but I’ll give you some representative examples. A low GI value is lower than 55. Some examples are : whole wheat breads and whole grain breads with seeds; pasta; brown rice; all legumes including kidney beans, chickpeas and lentils; sweet potatoes; all high- water vegetables and fruit; porridge (not instant);all milk, cheese and yogurt (artificially sweetened is lower than sugar-sweetened).When you juice a fruit, or cook or mash a food, you increase the glycemic index. Anything without carbohydrate, like meat, obviously is extremely low.;

Between 56 and 69 are foods of a medium GI value. Examples include angel-food cake, cake-type muffins and donuts; Grapenuts cereal; corn and peas; orange juice; bananas; canned soups made with lentils, peas and black beans; converted white rice.

Unfortunately, the high GI foods are quite numerous and, of course, consist mainly of stuff you love. Foods with a value over 70 are: white bread, double-layer cookies, fudge, chocolate bars; instant rice; crispy rice cereal; corn flakes; carrots; parsnips; mashed potatoes.
As I mentioned, these are just a few examples. If you seriously want to follow a low GI diet you should get the advice of a registered dietitian. Foods in their natural state, that is without a lot of processing, are your best bet. Adding to the interest in this dietary approach is a study conducted in Italy which linked a diet rich in high glycemic index foods with breast cancer. This is only one study, obviously, but an interesting one. I’ll keep you posted as further results come in.

Mining for Minerals

When summer roles around I'm reminded of the comment of one of my sons whenhe was little: "Summer is a sweaty time". Maybe his remark lacked a little elegance, but I think he hit the nail on the head. And with all theperspiration brought about by summer's heat, comes a loss of two particularly important minerals: potassium and magnesium. I bet you don't lose much sleep worrying about the status of these minerals in your body(and I don't mean to imply they're only important if you perspire), but a well-balanced diet pays special attention to potassium and magnesium for a variety of reasons. Let me explain. Potassium is an interesting mineral (well, dietitians find it interesting) because of the many functions it performs in the body. First of all, though it's commonly associated with sodium, in contrast to sodium it is concentrated within the cells...nerve and muscle cells are especially rich in potassium. The main functions of potassium are the same as those of sodium: maintenance of fluid balance and volume. But it also has a role in carbohydrate metabolism, enhancement of protein synthesis and muscle contraction and nerve impulse conduction.Whoa! Do you really care about that? Maybe not, but I bet you care about reducing your risk of developing high blood pressure...and that's where having a goodly amount of potassium in your diet comes into play. We have almost proof positive that the interplay between calcium, potassium and magnesium has a tremendous impact on blood pressure. That brings us to the second interesting fact about potassium...where you find it. In my many years as a dietitian I noticed that whenever I asked a patient about what foods they would choose for potassium they invariably said bananas and oranges. They were right: those are excellent sources, but they ignored three equally good, if not better sources, avocado, milk and baked potato with the skin. There's actually a third interesting thing about potassium, one that wasn't well known until recently, and that's the role that this mineral plays in reducing the risk of osteoporosis. A number of recent studies have shown that potassium is associated with increased bone mass in adults. We're not exactly sure what the connection is, but it's thought to be due to the way in which potassium reduces the loss of calcium in the urine. I find it extremely interesting that one food, milk, should contain as a package the many nutrients necessary for bone health. Yes, milk contains calcium, and yes, it is rich in potassium, and then comes magnesium.Here's a bit of trivia for your next cocktail party: The village of Epsom inEngland was where people first noticed that drinking from a pool of bitter-tasting water made them feel healthfully purified. Later in the 17th century, sure enough somebody crystallized its salts and marketed "Epsom Salts" to great acclaim. It wasn't until the eighteen hundreds that magnesium was identified as the key ingredients in the salt and it became well known for its use in photographic flashes, flares, and as a metal valued for its lightness in space-age technology. But enough of trivia...what does magnesium have to do with your health? I fear it would bore you to tears if I droned on about the many, many functions of magnesium but at the risk of a little eye glazing I'll mention its role in glucose and fatty acid metabolism, amino acid activation, nervous activity and muscle contraction. Of all its jobs, however, none is more important than its role in bone metabolism. For my money, this is as good an explanation as any as to the inappropriateness or perhaps better said, inefficiency, of adding calcium to various beverages: all that peoplewill get is the added calcium and as we know, healthy bones and a healthy body depend on a whole toolkit of minerals and vitamins, not just calcium. Of commonly eaten foods, in the portions usually consumed, dairy products are the best sources of magnesium followed (in order of decreasing content) by breads and cereals, vegetables, meats and poultry, and fruits. On an indivual basis the best sources are peanuts, banana and avocado. It's interesting that bananas, avocados and milk are such great source of both these minerals...there must be a recipe in there somewhere.Let me hasten to point out that Milk of Magnesia ought not be considered a dietary source of magnesium. It acts by drawing water from cells into the intestine and by increasing intestinal movement. So, the bottom line, if milkof magnesia is used as an antacid, could be a serious bout of diarrhea.Overuse of the product could pose a serious threat to those with kidney problems. Magnesium is to plants what iron is to animals. Just as iron is the "core"atom of haemoglobin, magnesium is the "core" atom of chlorophyll, the green pigment that enables plants, in the presence of light, to transform carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates. It thus has some claim to being, next to carbon, the element most important to life.Given the above information, we might well conclude that the most importantfood trend as we ease into the third millenium has been the popularity ofthe smoothie! What better way to cool down on a hot summer day than with these tasty combos of ice-cold milk or yogurt and a variety of fruits and berries. Potassium and magnesium may not be on your mind as you quaff them down, but your body will thank you for it!

Iron and the Irish Jig

When the Irish dance group “Riverdance” first became popular I used to joke that I had the upper-body part of the dance down pat but needed to work on the intricate foot movements. Of course, holding your arms straight down by your side doesn’t require much talent, but the steps require both talent and energy. I bet you dollars to doughnuts that there wasn’t much sprightly dancing going on when the Irish were enduring the potato famine.

Well sure, you think, when a person doesn’t have enough to eat they don’t much feel like dancing. But there’s more to it than simply not having enough food…the kind of food makes a difference as well. Even if the Irish had had enough calories supplied by their blighted potatoes, one of the main nutrients necessary for “get-up-and-go” is iron…and potatoes just can’t cut it. Don’t get me wrong: potatoes are a wonderful food, full of complex carbs, potassium, and even vitamin C. They even have some iron, but unfortunately not enough and the wrong kind.

Let me clarify. When I say “the wrong kind”, it’s not so much that there are right and wrong types of iron, but rather that some kinds are very well absorbed and others are not. The sort of iron that’s found in red meat, for example, is called “heme” iron and it is very well absorbed. Plant and vegetable foods contain “non-heme” iron and its absorption rate is considerably lower. To make matters worse, some vegetables and grains contain substances that interfere with the little iron absorption that might occur and the body ends up getting almost none of it. Spinach is a good example of a food that contains a fair amount of iron but delivers hardly any. Like potatoes, spinach is a terrific food for a variety of reasons, but don’t count on it as a source of iron. The situation is somewhat improved if you have a good source of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) at the same time as you’re eating the spinach because that nutrient will increase absorption somewhat. That’s why it’s a good idea to put some tomatoes or orange segments in your spinach salad, since they’re excellent source of that vitamin.

But back to the Irish and their dancing. Most of those doing the energetic to-ing and fro-ing were young girls. And wouldn’t you know…they’re the ones who need the iron most. (That’s not entirely true—all women in their reproductive years, especially if they’re pregnant have high iron requirements). At any rate, a young woman with an iron deficiency is not likely to be doing much high-kicking! Skip ahead a few centuries and we find that many of today’s young women are flirting with iron deficiency as well and they have plenty to eat besides potatoes.

No, famine is not the problem, but life-style might well be. I’m not going to launch into a rant about vegetarianism here because, with appropriate supplements, a vegetarian can be well nourished. The problem is that many young girls who give up meat aren’t getting the appropriate supplements to satisfy their iron requirements. Another recent and interesting development is the increased consumption of tea. Certainly research has shown a number of positive aspects to tea drinking, but the fact is that the tannic acid in tea reduces the amount of iron absorbed from a meal. And tea has become very “cool”.
So just a word of caution. Young girls and women, whether they’re Irish or not, are particularly vulnerable to low iron intake and iron-deficiency anemia. This can lead to health problems such as apathy, exhaustion, impaired immune function, headache, delayed cognitive development and poor academic achievement. While liver is the very best dietary source of iron, it’s not a big seller these days. Next to liver comes red meat, then chicken and fish. Enriched cereals make a significant contribution as well, and anyone following Canada’s Food Guide to Healthy Eating should be well served in the iron department. If you suspect that a young girl in your family isn’t getting sufficient iron and she isn’t willing to improve her diet, have a doctor do the appropriate tests before starting on supplements. Iron supplements can be tricky…best taken with some medical guidance.
Well-nourished young women make the best dancers!

What we think we know

I suppose it's within the realm of possibility that readers believe that dietitians/nutritionists (and by that I mean real, accredited nutritionists, not ones that get there so-called degree from a phoney organization) actually know all there is to know about nutrition. Not by a long shot. The unfortunate fact is that an awful lot that needs to be known about nutrition and health remains unknown. But that, unfortunately, is part of what separates the qualified, registered dietitian from the pretenders: we're quite willing to acknowledge when there are doubts or mysteries around a particular nutrition issue. The fakes are more than happy to supply an answer as fact, when the actual science around the question is very cloudy.Which brings me to today's topic: what are some of the questions about nutrition that we're still struggling with; still hoping that science will come up with a definitive answer? And, more to the point, what about the questions that science has clearly answered, but about which we keep hearing contradictory reports. A question that continues to plague me, for example, is how the purveyors of those pills that promise both calcium and fibre can ignore the fact that the fibre causes the calcium to be unavailable for absorption. Do these guys know something that the scientific nutrition community doesn't? And speaking of such things, how come olestra (one of many sugar substitutes) took such a beating for allegedly causing certain nutrients to be unabsorbed when a high-fibre diet (which everybody promotes) will do the same thing?Then there's the water issue. I'm sure you remember me discussing it before, but in a nutshell it's a known fact that the human body requires zero glasses of water per day. What it needs is the equivalent of eight glasses (250 mL) of fluid, but it can get that from many sources like fruit, vegetables, milk (90% water) and even (gasp) tea and coffee. But yet, you'll read and hear on an almost continuous basis (no doubt abetted by the bottled water industry) that you have to have the proverbial eight glasses on a daily basis.Then there's the whole subject of fats and heart disease. What we now seem to know beyond any reasonable doubt is that rather than your total cholesterol level or the amount of LDLs (low-density lipoproteins) in your bloodstream, among the best predictors of future heart disease is your ratio of total cholesterol to HDLs (high density lipoproteins). In that regard we know three things: the higher your HDLs the better; a diet rich in polyunsaturates will lower HDL levels; and specific saturated fatty acids will raise them. Yet what the public hears is: consume oils rich in polyunsaturates and avoid fats (mostly animal) that contain saturated fatty acids! Go figure. In a similar vein, there's the issue of trans fatty acids. We know most assuredly that they're bad: they will not only increase the LDL level, but also lower HDLs. So, without question, it's a good thing to get them out of our food supply by eliminating products made with partially hydrogenated vegetable oil (PHVO). But the PHVO has to be replaced by something, and guess what it usually is: vegetable oils rich in polyunsaturates. Not only will this do a number on your HDL levels, but there's also the issue of the ratio of omega-6 fatty acids (from polyunsaturates) to omega-3 fatty acids. Please don't let your eyes glaze over.this is important stuff. It would be great if we could get more people eating fatty fish, but so far that doesn't seem to be working very well. Common sense (based on scientific evidence) would dictate that we replace at least part of the PHVO with animal fat, but that triggers such a scare response that it's likely not going to happen. So my question is: how did we get to this sorry state of affairs where emotional response outweighs good science? As I've also mentioned previously, the animal fats, at least those from ruminant animals, along with raising HDL levels, will also contribute conjugated linoleic acid, which has been shown to help reduce cancer risk.Please don't misunderstand me: I'm not for a second suggesting that we should go whole hog on animal fats; nor should we abandon vegetable oils, some of which (olive and canola) supply important levels of monounsaturates. What I'm saying is that we should adhere to a principle that Health Canada advocated many years ago. And that is that the fat in our diet should be roughly 30%, and that should be made up of 10% polys, 10% monos, and 10% saturates. It was a sound idea then and it's a sound idea now. The question is: how did it get tossed?

Dietary Advice from a Grandmother

What we’ve come to expect from grandparents is wisdom and advice. I’m not sure how strong I am in the wisdom department, but hopefully I have some worthwhile dietary advice to pass on to my children, grandchildren…and readers of this blog.

We’ll start with the easy stuff. If you’re reading this blog then that should indicate that you have more than a passing interest in the subject of nutrition. That being the case, it will come as no surprise that my first bit of advice will be to make sure you’re getting at least eight servings of vegetables and fruits each day. That’s a combined total; not eight vegetables and eight fruits! The response I hear most often is that it’s next to impossible to consume that much. And my answer is: “NO, it’s not!” In the first place people often misunderstand the size of a serving. Just a half a cup of juice is a serving; so is a half cup of cooked veggies. A medium banana, an apple or orange, each constitute a serving. Two servings at each meal, plus one serving mid-morning and mid-afternoon…and you’ve got it made. The scientific evidence is very persuasive: people who consume the most fruits and veggies are the least likely to develop the chronic illnesses that plague western societies.

Next up: cereals and breads. Again, it won’t surprise you to learn that I’m recommending whole grain. In fact, if I were Queen Mother for a day, there would be no refined breads or cereals. I remember my Dad telling me that when he was a kid the rich kids’ mothers baked with white flour, while the poor kids Moms (of which he was one) had to make do with whole wheat. He could still remember the pride they all felt the day his mother came home with a bag of white flour…they really had made it! Now, of course, dietitians are trying with all their might to get people to choose whole grain. Yes, they put back some of the missing nutrients in enriched white flour and cereals, but it’s never the same as the original, whole-grain product. For hard-core white bread fanatics there is now available a “white” bread with all the fibre of its whole-wheat counterpart.

Now, then, a brief review of vitamin D. The average person's vitamin D status is pathetic. We simply don’t get enough of the stuff owing to Canada's geographical location (no bodily production of vitamin D from October till April), and to our use of sunscreen in the summer. Health Canada advises various amounts depending on your age (600 International Units if you’re over 70 years of age; 400 for young adults), but the top specialists in that vitamin recommend a minimum 1000 IUs for all adults.

Another nutrient for which a supplement may be the way to go would be the omega-3 fatty acids. If you’re a regular consumer of fatty fish (and I mean about three times a week), then you’re probably doing alright. But most folks just aren’t into fish like salmon, herring, and mackerel. You can up your intake, however, by eating omega-3 eggs and drinking DHA (an omega-3 fatty acid) enriched milk. There are even cheeses on the market now that are enriched with DHA. Failing that, you might want to look into some fish-oil capsules.

Nuts and Berries…there’s a lot of research showing that these goodies are not only tasty, but can make an important contribution to your over-all health. It’s true that nuts pack a pretty good caloric wallop, so you don’t want to overdo it, but a handful of almonds, walnuts or pecans may be just what the doctor ordered. Blueberry season is approaching and this grandmother would like to suggest that you buy a big lot and freeze them for a tempting treat come February. Of course, you can buy the frozen product all year long; they make a great addition to a milk and yoghurt smoothie.

And speaking of smoothies, we are now at the food group that continues to be under-consumed by most North Americans: the milk and milk product food group. The evidence is overwhelming that those who have three servings of milk/milk products per day will significantly reduce their risk of developing high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, obesity, osteoporosis, colon cancer, gout, kidney stones and PMS. If you care at all for the body you’re in, you’ll take steps to increase your dairy intake.

Trans fatty acids. You didn’t think I could do a whole blog without mentioning something that you should have a lot less of, now did you? While I tend to avoid negative advice, I wouldn’t be honest with you if I didn’t point out that probably the worst single factor in the North American diet is trans fatty acids. Health Canada has done a great job with its Trans Fat Task Force and soon most of the packaged foods that we buy will have a minimal amount of these offensive fats. Pay attention to what you use for baking at home…avoid hard margarines and vegetable shortenings and check labels for terms like “hydrogenated vegetable oil” and “vegetable oil shortening”. That’s where trans fatty acids lurk!
Obviously there’s a lot more to good nutrition than this space permits, but I hope you get the drift. From this dietitian/grandmother’s perspective, health care costs would go way down, and individual health would go way up, if people simply paid a little more attention to what goes into their mouths. If you’re a grandparent or have a grandparent, or even hope to be a grandparent some day, please take this little bit of grandmotherly advice to heart.