Modern Foods and Pitfalls
Topics:
Fiber Loss and the Glycemic
index
Trans Fats (New
Article Link)
Introduction:
Foods that
are commonplace in our world are largely engineered. This engineering
capitalizes on taste, texture and addictive ingredients in order to get the
consumer to buy more. Also, premium among food manufacturers is the magic
word..SHELF-LIFE. Foods are processed, packaged and stored in such a way
as to make them last longer. This is done by removing the natural items in
foods that aid in the consumption of the foods, principally nutrients and
enzymes. Interestingly, it is found that the most nutritious components in
whole foods often have bitter tastes. Note:
Nutr Today 2002
Jul-Aug;37(4):144-150
The
Taste of Health: Nature's Bitter Gifts.
Barratt-Fornell A, Drewnowski A.
A plant-based diet is said to protect against aging, heart disease, and cancer.
Yet, the given advice to eat more vegetables and fruit often goes unheeded.
Some consumers have turned instead to dietary supplements that provide
plant-based antioxidants in a more concentrated form. Although these
supplements are beneficial to human health in small doses, such compounds can
sometimes be toxic. Biologically active phytochemicals also tend to be bitter,
acrid, or astringent. The food industry has been removing them from plant foods
through selective breeding and debittering processes, in response to consumer
demand. Concerning bitter phytonutrients, the consumer faces competing demands
of taste, health, and food safety.
Thus, the removal of valuable phytonutrients makes the foods
tasty, but nutritionally poor. Food is for maintenance of the body, growth,
metabolism, energy. The nutrients are essential. There is an interesting
correlation between the effects on western society and food engineering. For
more information, look here:The
1900’s
Some of
the particular aspects of modern foods are the addition of a large amount of
specific ingredients, commonly:
The production of sugar involves producing a product that
is strictly caloric, having ZERO nutritional value. Of particular note is the
use of high fructose corn syrup, HFCS. Corn is a staple product that is grown
very cheaply and is a source of a variety of products, two very common ones,
corn syrup and corn oil. The HFCS is insidious in our foods. (Check labels..it
is everywhere!) The high amounts of fructose has been linked with a number of
health problems and more information is being introduced all the time. See this
introductory article and associated abstract from the American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, The
Devil’s Candy – by Dr. Susan M. Kleiner Ph.D, R.D.
HFCS is a particular difficulty. Note that:
STRONGLY RECOMMENDED is
reading the new book by Greg Critser, FAT LAND. In it, he discusses a
variety of obesity causing aspects, but goes into some detail concerning high
fructose corn syrup. Definitely worth reading. (See Recommended Reading List)
Oh My! AGE’s?? These are going to be
big! The news is just beginning to recognize these. AGE’s are chemical results
of chronically high blood sugar. First observed and recognized in diabetics,
AGE’s have been associated with numerous deleterious effects. Here is more…Advanced
Glycosidic Products, (AGE’s).
Here is a related, more
comprehensive article: AGE Breakers
The last point in the slide
above illustrates the fact that the nutrients needed to metabolize the very
food that is eaten are removed through processing! Note the following set of
slides of wheat. One is the whole wheat, one is processed wheat and the last is
enriched wheat. Examine these and ask yourself what YOU think is best for you! Nutrients in Wheat
Fiber Loss and Glycemic
Index
It is important to realize that the fiber that is lost by processing is exactly what is needed in order to prevent the rapid rise in blood sugar that leads to the problems described and many others. Here is an example from the famous Nurses Health Study that demonstrates the effect of the inclusion of fiber on diabetic risk.
Notice in the slide above that the
relative risk of diabetes increases to as much as 2.5x as fiber is removed and
sugars are added. The “glycemic load” is a measure of how fast blood sugar
rises after the consumption of a standard quantity of food. All foods have a
measured “glycemic index”. This
index is dramatically reduced by the inclusion of fiber. In addition, weight
loss and satiety is improved with lower index foods. Also, controlling the rate
of sugar absorption favors the use of blood fats for fuel. High glycemic
carbohydrates promote sugar metabolism at the expense of triglycerides
metabolism. A review of the current literature was published in the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition that supports these contentions. Here is the
abstract of their conclusions:
Am J Clin Nutr 2002
Jul;76(1):281S-5S
Glycemic index and obesity.
Brand-Miller JC, Holt SH, Pawlak DB, McMillan J.
Human Nutrition Unit, School of Molecular and Microbial Biosciences, University
of Sydney, NSW, Australia. j.brandmiller@biochem.usyd.edu.au
Although weight loss can be achieved by any means of energy restriction,
current dietary guidelines have not prevented weight regain or population-level
increases in obesity and overweight. Many high-carbohydrate, low-fat diets may
be counterproductive to weight control because they markedly increase
postprandial hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia. Many
high-carbohydrate foods common to Western diets produce a high glycemic
response [high-glycemic-index (GI) foods], promoting postprandial carbohydrate
oxidation at the expense of fat oxidation, thus altering fuel partitioning in a
way that may be conducive to body fat gain. In contrast, diets based on low-fat foods that produce a low
glycemic response (low-GI foods) may enhance weight control because they
promote satiety, minimize postprandial insulin secretion, and maintain insulin
sensitivity. This hypothesis is
supported by several intervention studies in humans in which energy-restricted diets based on low-GI foods produced
greater weight loss than did equivalent diets based on high-GI foods.
Long-term studies in animal models have also shown that diets based on high-GI starches
promote weight gain, visceral adiposity, and higher concentrations of lipogenic
enzymes than do isoenergetic, macronutrientcontrolled, low-GI-starch diets. In
a study of healthy pregnant women, a high-GI diet was associated with greater
weight at term than was a nutrient-balanced, low-GI diet. In a study of diet
and complications of type 1 diabetes, the GI of the overall diet was an
independent predictor of waist circumference in men. These findings provide the
scientific rationale to justify randomized, controlled, multicenter
intervention studies comparing the effects of conventional and low-GI diets on
weight control.
And, as you might expect, it doesn’t end there. It is common knowledge that a high fat diet lead to cardiovascular disease. Well, guess what? It’s looking increasingly like that is wrong. CHD seems to be related to the presence of fats that are easily oxidized when in the blood in the absence of anti-oxidants. However, blood fats are increased by a high glycemic load!
Consider a publication in the journal Arteriosclerosis and Thrombosis, 12(8) (1992). These researchers investigated 27 clinical trials that involved the measurement of blood fats and carbohydrates. The abstract, discussion and relevant tables of the results can be seen here: Dietary Fats and Blood Fats. The results indicate that by replacing part of your carbohydrates with fats results in a decrease in blood fats and a demonstrable improvement in blood lipids including HDL/LDL ratios. Note:
The exception? Saturated fats. Now, of course, the logical result of this is that increasing carbohydrates at the expense of good fats is hyperlipidemic, increasing blood fats. This, of course, has been demonstrated by research for some time now.
Finally, in an analysis that is part of the Nurses Health Study, a cohort of 75,500 women over a 10 year period has demonstrated, after adjusting for factors such as smoking, exercise, etc., a clear relationship between glycemic load and coronary heart disease. First the abstract:
A prospective study of dietary glycemic load, carbohydrate
intake, and risk of coronary heart disease
in US women
Simin Liu, Walter
C Willett, Meir J Stampfer Frank B Hu, Mary Franz, Laura Sampson, Charles H
Hennekens, and JoAnn E Manson
ABSTRACT
Background: Little is
known about the effects of the amount and type of carbohydrates on risk of
coronary heart disease (CHD). Objective: The objective of this study was to prospectively evaluate the relations of the amount and type of carbohydrates with
risk of CHD.
Design: A cohort of 75 521
women aged 38-63 y with no previous diagnosis of
diabetes mellitus, myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, or other cardiovascular diseases in 1984 was followed
for 10 y. Each participant's dietary glycemic load was calculated as a function of glycemic index, carbohydrate content, and frequency
of intake of individual foods reported on a validated food-frequency questionnaire at baseline. All dietary variables were updated in 1986 and 1990.
Results: During 10 y of follow-up (729472
person-years), 761 cases of CHD (208 fatal and 553 nonfatal) were documented. Dietary glycemic load was directly associated with risk of CHD after adjustment for age, smoking status, total energy intake,
and other coronary disease risk factors. The relative risks from the lowest
to highest quintiles of glycemic load were 1.00,
1.01, 1.25, 1.51, and 1.98 (95% CI: 1.41, 2.77 for the highest quintile; P for trend < 0.0001). Carbohydrate classified by glycemic
index, as opposed to its traditional classification as either
simple or complex, was a better predictor of CHD risk. The association between dietary glycemic load and CHD risk was most evident among women with
body weights above average [ie, body mass index (in kg/m2) ³ 23].
Conclusion:
These epidemiologic data suggest that a high dietary glycemic load from refined
carbohydrates increases the risk of CHD, independent of known coronary disease risk factors. Am J Clin Nutr 2000;71:1455-61.
A comparative table of baseline characteristics of all the participants can be seen here: CVS and Glycemic Load
The results? Check this…
As can be seen here, for the 1/3 of women that consumed the foods having the highest glycemic index, the incidence of cardiovascular disease was doubled! Even for those having a modest BMI.
Summary: Carbohydrates from high glycemic sources are dangerous in the long stretch. Get off the simple sugars!
These critters are finally being seriously
recognized as real problems for health, in particular, heart disease. Some
recent information shows:
READ THESE..
An introductory general article on trans-fats.
Trans-Fats-MH
A primer on essential fats and their
structures, see the page, Essential Oils. As a representative
example, consider the chemical structure of the essential fat, Linoleic Acid,
given here:
Linoleic Acid (LA)
A trans-fat
is one in which the direction of the chemical structure is changed as follows:
Altered Fat, (trans-fat)
Note that the
arrangement has changed. It is important to know that it is the shape of
the molecule that makes it function. This molecule is altered just enough in
it’s shape to compete and block the proper functions of the unaltered fats in
the body. These fats do occur in small amounts in nature, however, are made by
hydrogenating or heating good fats.
Monosodium
Glutamate
This is a
salt of glutamic acid, a common amino acid. It occurs naturally in seaweed,
soybeans and sugar beets. It is used to intensify the flavor of meats and spice
flavorings in a variety of foods. It is believed to be responsible for a
syndrome known as the “Chinese Restaurant Syndrome” in which diners suffer from
chest pain, headaches and numbness. It is known to cause brain damage in
rodents and effects in rats, rabbits, chicks and monkeys. Depression,
irritability and other mood changes have been reported as well. It is on the
FDA list of additives needing further study for mutagenic, teratogenic and
reproductive effects. Administration to neonatal animals results in
reproductive dysfunction as male and female adults. In 1995, a report from the
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, an independent body of
scientists that advises the FDA, identifies groups of people that may be
intolerant to MSG. One group is intolerant when MSG is eaten in large
quantities and a second group is those with poorly controlled asthma, for which
symptoms are temporarily worsened after consumption. It is still listed by the
FDA as GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe).1
People
that suffer from migraines seem to have MSG as an aggravating component. Other
aggravating factors include preserved meats preserved in nitrates, aged cheese,
alcohol in red wine and fermented or pickled foods.2
1.
Winter, R. “Food Additives” Three Rivers Press, NY 1999
2.
“Disease Prevention and Treatment”, 3rd Ed.
Editor, Melanie Segala, Life Extension
Media, Florida 2000