Category: Nutrition in the News

My take on the latest diet and nutrition headlines.

Are Your Veggie Burgers Toxic?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

ND_Blog_SoyScandal_0410_fin I’ve gotten several emails asking me to comment on the recent soy-burger scandal.  Here’s the background if you’re just tuning in:

A report published by the Cornucopia Institute (which describes itself as a “progressive farm policy research group”) revealed the “dirty little secret” of the soy industry, namely, that a solvent called hexane is commonly used in the processing of soybeans.  Hexane is widely used in food processing to extract oil from vegetables and nuts. Not surprisingly, traces of hexane have been detected in some soy foods leading to over-wrought headlines like “Veggie Burgers Contain Poisonous Chemicals” and “Which Veggie Burgers contain Neurotoxins?”

Cause for concern but not panic

Hexane gas is indeed highly toxic. Breathing hexane fumes can cause nerve damage. Industrial use of hexane contributes to air pollution and is potentially hazardous to workers who work with it. But the whole “neurotoxins in your burgers” thing is pretty sensational.  There is a big difference between breathing hexane fumes and ingesting trace amounts. The amounts found were tiny (well within allowable limits) and no adverse effects have been detected–despite decades of use in food production.

I’m not saying hexane is harmless or that we shouldn’t be concerned. But the reaction has been out of proportion. For a concerned but less hysterical response to this issue, see Eric Michael Johnson’s post on his Primate Diaries blog.

We’re shocked, SHOCKED!

For better or worse, hexane in the food supply is nothing new. But the natural-foods crowd seems to feel uniquely betrayed over the possibility of chemicals in veggie burgers. Why are they so surprised?

This is what soybeans look like when I harvest them from my garden:

Soybeans

And here’s one of the “natural” foods that everyone is upset about:

Boca

How shocked can we be that chemicals were involved?  Processed food is processed food. If you want to avoid chemicals in your food (whether it’s hexane or the one we’ll be worried about tomorrow), consider making your own veggie burgers.

Here are some recipes to try.  See also this article for a a list of processed soy foods made without hexane.

 

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?

 

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

 

Bias in Research Not Always What You’d Expect

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

I know that many of you are suspicious of nutrition research. Many are convinced that the dairy, egg, beef, corn, or [fill in the blank] industries have bought off the researchers, journals, government, and the media in an effort to cover up the truth about their products–suppressing negative research and fixing studies to produce findings favorable to their products. There are certainly times when research is misconducted, misinterpreted, and/or misreported. That’s why all research (and reporting!) needs to be viewed with a critical eye–and all potential interests need to be disclosed.

Related content: Can we trust industry funded research?

The White Hat Bias

But biases don’t always run in favor of commercial interests.  Researchers writing in the International Journal of Obesity have documented what they’re calling a “white-hat bias,” which influences researchers to reach conclusions that support their preconceived notions about nutritional “bad guys.”

As evidence, they present two widely-cited studies on the link between sweetened beverage consumption and obesity. Both studies found that the link between the two was statistically insignificant. Yet these studies are regularly misrepresented by the press and cited by other researchers as evidence that sweetened beverages are positively linked to obesity.

They also show that studies which do find a link between sweetened beverages and obesity are much more likely to be accepted for publication than studies that fail to find a link–a so-called publication bias.  In other words, scientists have become so convinced that soda is a “bad guy” in the war on obesity that they overlook or misinterpret evidence to the contrary.

I’m not saying that sweetened beverages aren’t a problem. But ignoring evidence that doesn’t conform to what we’ve decided is “true” isn’t going to improve our understanding. And for those who believe that all nutritional research has been bought and paid for by Big Industry, it’s worth noting that an entrenched “thought bias” can be just as influential (and just as counter-productive) as commercial interests.


What if we call it calorie cycling instead?

by Monica Reinagel, MS, LDN

In previous posts,  I’ve looked at the merits of something they’re calling Alternate Day Modified Fasting (ADMF) as a way to lose weight.  But the word “fasting” appears to have a lot of baggage–to many, it implies extreme, dangerous, or even disordered eating.

ADMF is not really fasting at all.  A more accurate term, Calorie Cycling, is now gaining traction and this rebranding may allow people to get  beyond their assumptions and preconceived notions for long enough to evaluate this approach on its merits.

There seems to be a deeply entrenched–but completely arbitrary–notion that we should eat the same number of calories every day. Fans of the evolutionary nutrition movement would point out that primitive man certainly did not have the luxury of constant, consistent access to food. We now suffer from an epidemic of over-nourishment. Maybe it’s time to think outside the box a little?

The Logic Behind Calorie Cycling

If you were to cut your normal daily caloric intake by a third, you would lose weight–and fairly quickly. But there are problems with this approach to weight loss:

1. You will probably experience hunger.

2. Staying on the regimen requires constant vigilance, monitoring, and self-control.

3. After about 72 hours of sustained caloric restriction, your body will adjust by slowing its metabolism (slightly).

So, let’s say we take the same reduced number of calories. But instead of spreading them evenly throughout the week, we alternate very low calorie days and normal or slightly above normal days.

Instead of this:

Typical

you have this:

Cycled

Over the course of the week, you’d consume the same number of calories on either regimen and experience comparable weight loss.  And, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that in both scenarios, you are eating a well-balanced array of nutritious foods.

Does calorie cycling offer any advantages?

Well, for one thing, because there is no sustained calorie restriction, your body does not adjust its metabolism or start catabolizing lean muscle tissue as it would on a sustained low-calorie diet.  Additionally, some people report that calorie cycling requires less will-power than constant restriction. Although you may feel hunger on your low-intake day, you can eat to satisfaction on your high-intake day. Contrary to assumptions, research shows that most people will eat only slightly more calories than normal following a skipped meal or fast.

As a bonus, some studies suggest that calorie-cycling may have benefits unrelated to weight loss, such as reducing oxidative damage, improving insulin resistance, and slowing mitochondrial aging.

Calorie cycling clearly isn’t for everyone, and I’d strongly encourage anyone considering it to check in with their doctor or nutrition professional first. Those suffering from hypoglycemia, pregnant, or with a history or risk of eating disorders are not good candidates, for example. Aside from health issues, some people may simply prefer or be more successful on a more traditional approach.

But for some, it may be a helpful alternative strategy. At the very least, I think it’s worthy of further investigation and study.