Author: Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Nutrition and Health Conference 2010

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

[Archival: Originally published on my (discontinued) NutritionData.com blog]

The 2010 Nutrition and Health Conference is coming up May 10 – 12 in Atlanta. This annual conference, presented by Andrew Weil and the University of Arizona’s Center for Integrative Medicine, is one of the best I’ve ever attended. The presentations and speakers are terrific and the general approach is rigorous and evidence-based.

If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you may remember that I wrote a series of posts from the conference two years ago.  I’ll be blogging from the conference again this May. In particular I’m looking forward to hearing  Arthur Agatston, MD (Author, The South Beach Diet) and David Kessler, MD (former Commissioner, U.S. Food & Drug Administration) as well as sessions on environmental contaminants in the food supply, nutrition for sports performance, and latest research in cancer, obesity, food allergies, and more.

For those of you in the nutrition or health professions, consider joining me in Atlanta for this great conference. For non-professionals in the Atlanta area, there will be a Public Forum on May 11th featuring Weil, Kessler, and Sanjay Gupta of CNN.

If you’re going, drop me an email at monica@nutritiondata.com and we’ll coordinate a meet-up!

 

Even bad guys deserve a fair trial

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

If all the high fructose corn syrup on the planet were to disappear tomorrow, you wouldn’t find me shedding a tear. Thanks to government subsidies and a glut of cheap corn, HFCS is produced in massive quantities. As a result, our food supply has been flooded with cheap, empty calories and we’re fatter and sicker as a result.

But I was disappointed by the latest research on HFCS and the way it’s being reported.

In an effort to put the last nail in the HFCS coffin, Princeton researchers have hit the newswires with a sensational research result: Rats fed high fructose corn syrup gain significantly more weight than rats fed sucrose, even when both groups eat the same amount of calories.  That sounds pretty damning.  But if you read the entire study, I think you’ll be left with a lot more questions than answers.

Weird Science

The authors are making a big deal out of the fact that rats given HFCS gained more weight than rats given sucrose. They don’t mention that they actually had two groups of rats eating HFCS and only one of them gained more weight. The second HFCS group–which ate the same amount of HFCS as the first–gained exactly as much weight as the sucrose group (and, for the record, the same as a fourth group of mice that weren’t given sucrose OR HFCS).   You’d think that would deserve a comment.

In a second long-term experiment using female rats, they gave one group chow plus HFCS and another group chow plus sucrose. The sucrose group actually gained slightly more weight than the HFCS group, but the differences were not statistically significant. Seeing as this result directly contradicts (one of) the results from the short-term study, you would think that would have deserved a comment–if not equal billing in the press release.

But in fact, in the part of the paper where they discuss their results, the authors make what appears to be a blatant misstatement. They say that in the long-term experiment, “HFCS caused an increase in body weight greater than that of sucrose in both male and female rats.” In fact, according to their paper, none of the males in the  long-term experiment were given sucrose and the females given HFCS gained less weight than the comparable group of females given sucrose.  The only females that showed a statistically significant increase in weight gain were a group who were given 24-access to both food and HFCS…a group that had no comparable control in the study.

The Corn Refiner’s Association has raised several questions about study design. But because they are the “bad guys,” no-one seems to take their criticisms seriously. For the record, I am not supported by nor do I support the CRA. (Please re-read the first paragraph of this post).

As I see it, making unhealthy food cheaper doesn’t benefit consumers. The only ones benefiting from HFCS are corn growers and junk food manufacturers. But in a court of law, the rules of evidence are upheld even when we’re all sure that the guy on trial is a bad guy. And the same should apply to research–and journalism.

Weird conclusions

Aside from the problems with the study design and the misleading reporting of the results, the authors also make some odd speculations about the possible mechanisms behind the results (such as they were). For example,  the authors suggest that it is the increased percentage of fructose that makes HFCS more damaging than sugar. (HFCS is typically 55% fructose, sugar is 50%). But using their numbers, if we were to replace all the HFCS in today’s typical diet with sucrose, it would reduce the amount of fructose by 3 g per day.Honestly, it’s a little hard to believe that 3 g of fructose a day is responsible for all of our woes. (The 100% increase in refined sugar intake…now that I could buy.)

They also speculate that HFCS might suppress leptin and insulin release, which might fuel over-eating. Yet their own results don’t support this. The rats given HFCS ate the same number of calories as the rats given sucrose–even though they had unlimited access to more food.

Despite the headlines on the press release, the findings on HFCS vs. sucrose are actually so sketchy they’re not even mentioned in the “conclusion” section of the journal article. Ultimately, the only valid conclusion from this study is that if you give rats food and sweetened water, they will get fatter than if you only give them food and water. I think we knew that already.

It’s the quantity not the quality we should be worrying about

Research is research. But in the real world, I think we’ve got our priorities backward. Let’s first focus on reducing the outrageous quantity of sugar being consumed, and then worry about the quality.  I’ve said this before (to howls of protest) but I’ll say it again: If you were to reduce your intake of sugar to the levels recommended by the AHA or WHO, I haven’t seen one shred of evidence to suggest that ingesting HFCS (or sucrose) at those levels would lead to obesity or disease.
 

Note to industry advocates: No fair quoting from this post out of context. At least include a link to the entire post!

 

Is saturated fat back on the hook?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

That pain in your neck? It might be a case of nutrition-advice whiplash.

Saturated fat, long blamed for heart disease, seemed to be exonerated last month by a large study which found no connection between saturated fat intake and heart disease. People who ate less saturated fat were just as likely to have heart disease as people who ate more. Conclusion: Saturated fat does not cause heart disease. Cue rejoicing (not to mention “I told you so’s”) from Atkins and Paleo dieters.

But now the Harvard School of Public Health is throwing a bucket of ice-water on the whole party. They did their own analysis of the relationship between fat and heart disease and found that it all depends on what you replace the saturated fat with.

The Harvard authors note that previous clinical trials aimed at reducing saturated fat had “very mixed” results, “with most showing no significant effect.”   But, they note, when health authorities started to recommend reducing saturated fat, they didn’t offer much guidance in terms of what to replace it with. Some replaced those calories with hydrogenated fats.Others replaced them with refined carbohydrates. In both cases, the benefits of reducing saturated fat may have been canceled out by the negative impact of trans fats and refined carbs.

But when saturated fats were replaced with polyunsaturated fats (yes, the much maligned PUFAs), heart disease risk declined 20%.  (Read summary of research and interview with lead authors.)

This story isn’t over yet. Those who never let go of the notion that saturated fat contributes to heart disease will now get their chance at the “I told you so’s.” Those who are wedded to the idea that saturated fat is the ideal fat or that PUFAs are the source of all evil will find grounds to question this latest analysis. (Post them below–but not before reading the rest of the post.)

Where does this leave the non-ideologue who is just trying to figure out what to eat today?  Let me try to save you some neck pain.  These ground rules are unlikely to change:

1. I think everyone can agree that too many refined carbohydrates is a big problem. Limit them.

2. Trans fats (from hydrogenated oils) are bad news. Avoid them.

3. In the context of a typical Western diet, shifting some of your fat intake from saturated fats (from animals) to polyunsaturated fats (from vegetable oils) appears to have some advantages in terms of heart health. But I would argue that monounsaturated fats (olive oil) and omega-3 fat (fish and flax) are even better replacements.

For my Paleo and Weston Price folks who are about to pop a vein (but NOT from atherosclerosis!!) let me add:

For those who have made a more radical departure from the typical Western diet, by (say) eliminating all or most grains, sugars, processed foods, etc., it may be that reducing saturated fat offers no further benefits in terms of protecting your heart. Party on.

Fresh vegetables? Think again

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

frozen veggiesWhat could be more nutritious than fresh vegetables? Frozen ones, quite possibly.

A new study finds that frozen vegetables, which are usually processed within hours of being harvested, may contain more of certain nutrients than “fresh” vegetables, which may be weeks old by the time they’re consumed. This latest study was funded by Birds-eye, but it’s actually nothing we didn’t already know. According to the USDA, fresh vegetables can lose up to 50% of their nutritional value after just one or two days of room temperature storage or one to two weeks of cold storage.

This is not a nutritional emergency. Even at half strength, vegetables are still among the most nutritious foods you can choose. And many valuable nutrients, such as fiber, minerals, and fat-soluble vitamins like E and K, are fairly stable in storage. In other words, the kale that’s been sitting in my fridge since last weekend’s shopping trip is still going to make a great, nutritious side dish for tonight’s dinner.

But the study is a good reminder. Scoring extra-fresh produce from the garden or farmer’s market is a good way to maximize the nutritional value–but eating it promptly is just as important. And if you are stocking up for more than a week or so at a time, frozen veggies may be the best bet for long storage.

See also: Is all processed food bad?

 

How safe is imported fish?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Q. Is imported frozen fish from countries like India and Vietnam safe? I avoid buying any food imported from China but I bought frozen Swai Basa Fish (farmed) from Vietnam and frozen Squid (caught wild) from India. They tasted really good and they were cheap, but I’m wondering if we can trust those imports or they may be full of some toxic stuff.

A.  Theoretically, the safety of fish being sold in U.S. markets is monitored by federal agencies such as the FDA, whose job it is to be sure that the fish sold for human consumption in the U.S is “safe, wholesome, and not misbranded or deceptively packaged.”  (Institute of Medicine on Seafood Safety)

But as we’ve seen lately, the ability of the FDA to effectively police the food supply and enforce its regulations is in serious doubt. Just a few years ago, for example, there was a scandal in which salmon being sold for a premium as “wild-caught” in both wholesale and retail markets turned out to be cheap farmed salmon. ( Story from New York Times)

To make things even more challenging, fishing and farming practices are changing rapidly around the globe as demand for seafood increases.  New restrictions and best practices are being implemented. But loopholes and work-arounds are also constantly being discovered and exploited. It’s a moving target!

The best resource I’ve found to keep up with these issues is Seafood Watch. These guys are working hard to stay on top of all of these issues and to provide up-to-date resources for consumers trying to make safe and responsible choices.

I scanned Seafood Watch’s reports on both the fish you mentioned.  In terms of toxins or contaminants, I didn’t see too much to worry about with the wild-caught squid, but these comments on farmed swai basa got my attention:

“Commercial aquaculture for finfish in Viet Nam continues to use relatively low technology and many operations continue to use homemade feeds…[with] little or no management of aquaculture operations…”

The safety of these fish as food obviously depends primarily on the water they’re raised in and the food they are fed. They might be perfectly fine, but it doesn’t look as if anyone is paying too much attention.

From a sustainability perspective, which is more about the long-term health of the oceans than the safety of the food, both wild-caught squid and farmed swai basa are considered “good alternatives” but not “best choices.”

How healthy is 100% fruit juice, really?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Q. What should I look for when buying fruit juice? For example the “100% pure and natural orange juice” says it contains 0% Vitamin C. How is that possible? Another one provides 100% Vitamin C but from the list of ingredients we see that Vitamin C is actually added.

A. The USDA considers a half cup of fruit juice equivalent to a serving of fruit but I have my doubts.  Processed fruit juice–even 100% juice–is a distant second to fresh whole fruit in terms of its nutritional value.

For one thing, fruit juice is a very concentrated source of sugar and calories. All the fiber, which slows the absorption of the sugars in whole fruit, has been removed.

Secondly, many (most?) of the naturally-occurring nutrients are lost during processing, pasteurization, and storage.  As you found, manufacturers may compensate for this by adding nutrients back to the juice after the fact.  You could get the same benefit from taking a vitamin C capsule.

Nutritionally, I’d rank processed fruit juice only slightly higher than soda and other sweetened beverages.

If you choose to drink fruit juice, consume it in moderation. Freshly-prepared juice (made from whole fruit with a juicer and consumed immediately) preserves more of the antioxidants. But for the full nutritional benefits of fruit, I think you’d be far better off consuming whole fresh fruit–and drinking water!

Michelle’s Tofu Salad with Nutritional Yeast

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

 

If a recipe calls for tofu, it’s important to note whether regular or “silken” tofu is called for. They are not interchangeable. Silken tofu is softer and more fragile. It’s used in miso soup, and it’s often used to impart a creamy texture in dairy-free recipes for salad dressings, puddings, pies, and other desserts. Regular tofu has a slightly coarser texture and holds its shape better. You’ll find it used in stir-fries and grilled and baked dishes.

Michelle’s Tofu Salad with Nutritional Yeast

I used to think of this as a mock egg salad until I realized that I like it much better than regular egg salad!  It’s great on crackers or as a sandwich or wrap filling.

Ingredients

1 package extra-firm regular (not silken) tofu

1 medium carrot, grated

3 tablespoons reduced fat mayonnaise

3 tablespoons nutritional yeast flakes (or more to taste)

Garlic salt, to taste

Instructions

  1. Wrap tofu in several thicknesses of paper towels and squeeze to remove excess moisture.
  2. Mash tofu with fork in medium bowl.
  3. Add rest of ingredients and combine. Adjust seasoning to taste.

Makes 4 servings. Per serving: 164 calories, 9 g fat, 8 g carbohydrate, 4g fiber, 14 g protein.

Originally published at QuickandDirtyTips.com

BPA: Which foods are safe?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

Q. I’ve heard that BPA can be in the lining of many canned foods and in the lids of jarred food. I am planning to get pregnant in the next couple of months so I’m trying to avoid BPA. Should I avoid all jarred and canned food? How can I find out which foods are bpa free and safe to eat?

A. The FDA sent out a confusing mixed message this week. On the one hand, the FDA officials admit they have concerns over the safety of BPA in food products such as canned goods and baby formula.

The agency says it supports “reasonable steps to reduce human exposure to BPA” and advises consumers not to fill containers made with BPA with hot liquids. On the other hand, the FDA has decided that BPA can remain in use while further study is conducted and tells parents to continue to use infant formula and baby foods because the benefit of “stable nutrition” outweighs the risk of BPA exposure.

Consumer watchdogs charge that the FDA is soft-pedaling the danger to consumers because they are not yet prepared to upset the plastics and food manufacturing industry by banning BPA.  My own review of the evidence makes me uncomfortable with the FDA’s laissez-faire stance–especially for pregnant women and small children who are probably at greatest risk from BPA exposure.

I’m also unconvinced by the industry’s reassurance that the level of consumer exposure is well below the government’s safety standards. Current research by independent scientists suggests that the safe exposure level may be as much as 20,000 times lower than these outdated standards permit.

Consumers who are unconvinced by the FDA’s reassurances have limited options for safer canned foods. One manufacturer (Eden Foods) offers some BPA-free canned goods and more BPA-free brands may emerge in response to consumer demand. Short of that, those wishing to avoid BPA should avoid all canned goods.    Fresh and frozen foods are good alternatives.

Tips on avoiding BPA exposure from foods and containers.

Interview with Technical Policy Director of Consumer Union