Nutrition comparison of gluten-free flours

In this week’s episode of the Nutrition Diva podcast, I reviewed the nutritional benefits of watermelon seed flour in comparison to other gluten- and grain-free flours. You can listen to the episode here and below is a chart showing the nutritional values for several of the most common types.

1/4 cupCaloriesProtein (g)Fat (g)Sat fat (g)Carb (g)Fiber (g)Calcium (mg)Potassium (mg)
Watermelon seed flour17891535017207
Almond flour16061206472210
Coconut flour12063218106600
Cassava flour13000031220106
Gluten-free baking flour130200301459
Paleo baking flour110440.513327160
White pastry flour12030.50261658
Whole wheat pastry flour11040.502337111

What’s the latest on A2 milk?

[Transcript]

There’s a certain amount of a genetic variation in dairy cows, just the way there is with people. That’s why some of us are left-handed and some of us have red hair!  And for Dairy cattle, one of those genetic variations leads to tiny differences in the proteins in their milk.

Beta-casein is the main protein in cow’s milk. And most of the dairy cattle here in the U.S. produce milk that contains two forms of beta casein…the A1 form and the A2 forms.  But some cattle produce milk that contains only the A2 form of beta casein.

The milk looks and tastes exactly the same. It has the same nutritional profile—same amount of protein, calcium, same amount of lactose. 

About 25% of the Western population experiences some degree of digestive discomfort after consuming cow’s milk…things like gas, bloating, or loose stools. We’re not talking about a milk allergy…that’s far less common and potentially more serious.  These digestive symptoms are relatively harmless and temporary but they can be uncomfortable and inconvenient.  And they are thought to be due to an inability to breakdown lactose, which is sugar in milk.

There are a few things you can do: You can avoid dairy products. You can take a lactase supplement when you eat dairy products, that’s an enzyme that helps break down the lactose so that it doesn’t cause problems. Or you can buy dairy products that have the lactose removed or reduced. 

And there are now a handful of studies showing that for people with known lactose intolerance or who suspect they are lactose intolerant, drinking A2 milk, which  only contains the A2 form of beta casein protein, may cause fewer digestive symptoms. 

I think this is something that individuals will need to try for themselves to see whether or not it makes a difference for them. And if it doesn’t, there are other options for people who have trouble with dairy, such as the lactase supplements and lactose free milk.

It’s important to note that at this time there no other known benefits to consuming only the A2 protein and no other known risks of consuming the A1 form.

Related listening

The problem with fake sugar

When health experts told us we were eating too much sugar, industry had an answer for us: artificial sweeteners.  All the sweetness (and then some!), none of the problems.  Only it turned out there WERE problems.

Although they don’t directly affect our blood sugar, artificial sweeteners indirectly affect our ability to metabolize sugar.  I review the latest research on this in this week’s Nutrition Diva podcast (below).

And even though artificial sweeteners don’t have any calories, they promote the growth of intestinal bacteria that are linked with obesity. (More on that in the second episode below.)

When artificial sweeteners started to seem like a bad idea, industry had an answer for us: natural non-caloric sweeteners like stevia and monkfruit.  (See also: Is stevia an artificial sweetener?)

And although they don’t seem to cause as many problems as the artificial sweeteners, they still encourage us to eat sweet foods and beverages–to the detriment of our overall diet quality. (That’s the topic of the third episode below.)

The real problem here is not that sugar is so bad for us. It’s that we want to eat it in quantities that are not good for us.

And the problem with noncaloric sweeteners (even the natural ones) is that we mistake them as a free pass to consume sweet foods and beverages in unlimited quantities.  (See also: What’s a moderate amount for noncaloric sweeteners?)

Related listening

 

 

Disruptions in the Food Supply: What to Expect

Related Listening

Connect with local growers

LocalHarvest.Org

Learn More

Relief for America’s Small Farmer’s Act,

Food Chain Worker Alliance

Local Agricultural Marketing Program

 

Six Ways to Make Your Diet Healthier (for the Planet)

Earth DayHappy Earth Day!

These days, we’re more conscious of how our dietary choices affect the health of our planet. But it gets complicated.  Sure, buying organic products helps reduce the amount of pesticides and artificial fertilizers that are applied to the ground.  But what about the environmental impact of transporting organic produce thousands of miles from its source to your table? How about all the energy it takes to process, package, and transport the organic convenience foods and all-natural junk food that fill the freezers and shelves of high-end whole-foods grocers? And to bring the conversation back to nutrition for a moment, how nutritious do you think those organic sugar-frosted corn flakes really are?

In honor of Earth Day, here are six ways to make your diet healthier for your body and the planet. Continue reading “Six Ways to Make Your Diet Healthier (for the Planet)” >

Pesticide exposure: separating facts from fears

An advocacy group called Friends of the Earth has been publicizing the results of a new study demonstrating that when people switch from a regular diet to one containing only organic foods, their exposure to pesticides is reduced.

The study recruited four families from different corners of the country.  Each family ate a non-organic diet for six days and an all-organic diet for six days. The researchers found that the organic diet “rapidly and dramatically reduced exposure to pesticides.” 

That’s not terribly surprising.  In fact, it’s so unsurprising, it’s a little hard to imagine why the researchers felt the need to do this study.

The far more important question (not answered in this study) is: Is this something we need to worry about?

Relatively major but absolutely minor

In reporting their findings, the Friends of the Earth present the difference in exposure in relative terms. “Levels of all detected chemicals dropped an average of 60.5 percent with a range of 37 percent to 95 percent depending on the compound.”

But they don’t give us any information about the absolute levels of exposure.  This is at least as important as the relative exposure. Celery has 40 times as much sodium as cucumber. It’s still a low sodium food.

Did those higher levels of exposure pose any sort of threat? Or were they (as I suspect) well below the threshold of concern?

Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish

Secondly, the coverage repeatedly talks about the “pesticide levels in the bodies” of the subjects. But the study didn’t test the subjects’ blood or tissues. They tested their urine, which is where the body discards things it doesn’t want or need.  Furthermore, what they found in the urine were compounds formed when the pesticides were broken down by the liver.

In other words, what they found was evidence that the body’s detoxification systems were working exactly as they are supposed to, breaking down and excreting potentially harmful compounds. The pesticides these families were being exposed to by eating a non-organic diet were apparently being eliminated from their bodies.

So I have to ask once again: Is this really something that we need to worry about?

One of these things is not like the other

The organization points out that one of the pesticides monitored in this study is frequently linked to farmworker poisonings.  That’s a great argument for farmers using more care when working with agricultural chemicals (and that goes for synthetic as well as organic chemicals). But it doesn’t really have anything to do with risks that families might be exposed to by eating conventional produce.  And yet, by juxtaposing these two facts in the press release, it implies that eating non-organic foods increases your risk of chemical poisoning.  There is absolutely no data to support this implication.

Good news is no news?

Meanwhile, the press reports don’t mention that a third of the compounds they were testing for were undetectable in the urine samples after the non-organic diet. You have to wonder whether they were, perversely, somewhat disappointed by this.  They certainly didn’t seem very eager to publicize the fact that some of the most common pesticides used in conventional agriculture apparently pose little risk to eaters.

So, what’s the upshot of all this?

The Friends of the Earth concludes that “these results show that eating organic works.”  Works how, exactly? Yes, eating organic  reduces your exposure to certain (but not all) pesticides. But does it reduce your risk of disease or harm? I don’t see any evidence of that here.

This is Important. Let’s Get it Right

Lest you think I am pro-pesticide, or anti-organic, let me assure you I’m not. I’m just against this sort of sloppy communication and manipulative “science.”

Conventional farmers don’t use pesticides because they’re lazy, ignorant, or uncaring. They use them, as sparingly as they can get away with, in order to maximize yields and lower the cost of food.  If they can figure out a way to use less, they are eager to do so.

Organic farmers use pesticides and herbicides, too, by the way. Some of these organic pesticides are highly toxic to beneficial insects and, if mishandled, can be harmful to humans, as well.  But organic farmers are also working to increase yield and reduce the cost of their products. And pest control is part of that.

Instead of pitting organic growers (and eaters) against conventional, why not work together to make progress on all of these important fronts? Let’s use the best technology, the best practices and, yes, the best chemistry, to create a safer, more abundant, and more sustainable food supply.

To that end, let’s assess the risks and impacts of chemical use (both synthetic and organic). Let’s weigh the costs and benefits of various options. But let’s debate the issues on their scientific merits instead of resorting to sensational, misleading, and manipulative “research” and rhetoric.

This is not an us vs. them situation. We’re all us.

Thinking of cooking that romaine? Here’s why you shouldn’t.

Lettuce soup recipe on Epicurious.com

Like many of you, when the CDC issued the warning about romaine lettuce last week, I had a package of romaine hearts in my fridge. Even though I had already eaten one, with no ill effects, the CDC is very clear that the rest should be discarded–just in case.

For reasons explained by food safety expert Dr. Robert Brackett in this episode of the Nutrition Diva podcast, washing the lettuce is not enough to remove E. coli..  The only way to kill those bugs is to heat them up to at least 160 degrees Fahrenheit and hold them there for a while.

But, like you, I hate to waste food. And I remembered being intrigued last winter by some lettuce soup recipes. Wouldn’t cooking the lettuce thoroughly in a soup be a way to safely avoid throwing this (probably perfectly fine) lettuce away? And a chance to try a new recipe to boot?

When I sat down this morning to write this post, I intended to propose just that: Make soup from whatever romaine lettuce got stranded in your crisper drawer last week.  Fortunately, I decided to run that advice by an expert before publishing it. And I’m glad I did.

Dr. Brackett has once more come to our rescue, explaining why this might not be good advice:

“While it is true that ‘thorough’ cooking should kill E. coli…it depends on the physiological state the bug is in (i.e. phase of growth, individual cells versus “clumps”, etc) as well as where the cells are physically located (internalized in the lettuce, in the middle of a clump of leaves, etc). One would really need to validate the lethality of heating romaine before one could say it was ‘thorough’.

However, another reason why CDC recommends simply discarding all romaine, is that…one could be potentially be bringing E. coli into the kitchen and creating a cross-contamination situation (counters, refrigerator, utensils, etc), or even contaminating one’s hands (and perhaps inadvertently to mouth) and risk illness if they are handling the lettuce. “

If you do have some lettuce on hand, throwing it away really is the better part of wisdom. It’s also not a bad idea to give that crisper drawer a thorough cleaning. (Let’s be honest: this is probably long past due…). Finish up with a proper hand-washing and toss the dishtowel in the laundry. (Most of us don’t do that nearly often enough either.)

Let’s hope, for everyone’s sake that the source is identified quickly. Those sickened by the bug are not the only victims here. Outbreaks like this can have a devastating–and lasting–financial impact on growers and farm workers as well.

In next week’s Nutrition Diva podcast, I’ll be talking about a not-so-new technology that could potentially prevent the next outbreak.