bite my words

Dispelling nutrition myths, ranting, and occasionally, raving


Leave a comment

Juice cleanses

url

I know cleanses are nothing new for me to blog about but I felt compelled to respond to this article in the National Post. Specifically, to the suggestion that it can be a good thing that you feel fatigued during a juice cleanse. The spokesperson for the company providing the juices to the author (more on that later) stated: “Simply, if you’re putting less into your body, you’ll have less energy,” explains Snyder, “but fatigue can be a positive.” Apparently it can be a positive because it can spur you to have better sleep. It’s also advised to ease-up on your exercise routine during a juice cleanse.

You know what else can help you have a good sleep without depriving you of sufficient calories and nutrients? Fresh air and exercise. It seems ridiculous to me that you would want to consume a diet that leaves you feeling fatigued. Your diet should serve to improve your energy and mood.

I also find it a little inappropriate that the author is essentially promoting a line of juices through this article. If she had included scientific evidence to support the use of juice cleanses and had not named a brand of juices, and interviewed their spokesperson, the article might have a little bit more credibility. As it stands, this article is essentially an advertisement masquerading as journalism.


Leave a comment

Take it with a grain of salt, or maybe not

url

Oh great, the latest headlines on salt: People eat too much salt but surprising report questions if eating too little could be harmful. Not exactly, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a report, based on a review of studies pertaining to salt/sodium consumption and health. The report indicated that there may not be much benefit to reducing sodium consumption below the current recommended maximum of 2, 300 mg/day. They also looked at a few studies that found sodium consumption much below this amount might actually be detrimental to health. However, these studies all had major flaws and most looked at patients with serious health issues rather than looking at sodium reduction in the general population as a preventative health measure. You can access the full report, or the report brief here.

Yes, the report states that there is no research available to support reducing sodium consumption to 1, 500 mg/day, or less. Yes, the report also suggests that there may be some risk in reducing sodium consumption to 1, 500 mg/day in certain subsets of the population. That doesn’t mean that there may not be benefit in reduced sodium intake for those outside of those population subsets. It just means that there’s currently no research to support recommendations of less than 1, 500 mg of sodium per day. More research could be conducted and it may be the case that there is benefit, or not, the point is that we don’t know.

What we do know is that there is a benefit from reducing sodium intake to no more than 2, 300 mg/day and that most Americans (Canadians may be slightly worse due to the salty formulations of our packaged and fast food) consume in excess of this: on average, 3, 400 mg/day. Even if there proves to be no benefit to consuming as little as 1, 500 mg of sodium a day we can still benefit from a drastic reduction in sodium intake. Don’t let the headlines fool you into thinking that you might be harmed by reducing your sodium intake.


1 Comment

The cruel side of veganism

imgres

Back in February Alex Jameison (you may know her as Morgan Spurlock’s vegan girlfriend in Supersize Me) announced on her blog that she was no-longer vegan. For some reason this has just been making the headlines in the past couple of weeks, although her devotees and members of the vegan community were quick to comment. While many people have been supportive, others have been incredibly cruel; wishing cancer upon her! And that just rubs me the wrong way.

Why do we need to label our dietary practices and fit them into pretty little boxes? Why must we either be carnivores or vegans? And why must we judge each other so harshly based upon those labels?

In my mind, it’s ludicrous to attack someone for trying to be healthy and for following her biological urges to do so. I hate to break it to these people, but humans were not born to be vegans. We are omnivores by nature. This doesn’t mean that some of us can’t be healthy while subsisting on a vegan diet. But I don’t think that those of us who consume animals and their by-products should be vilified for doing what comes naturally to us.


1 Comment

The many faces of sugar

url-1

An article in the New York Times refers to a recent study that showed we consume most of our added sugar in solid foods rather than from sugar sweetened beverages. I’d like to point out that the sugar and calories in beverages tend to come with little or no additional nutrients. This may or may not be the case with foods. The calories in beverages also tend to be less satiating than the calories in foods.

The author suggests looking at where sugar is listed on the ingredient list as ingredients are listed by weight. Yes, this is true but the problem is that sugar is now frequently listed in numerous forms in the ingredient list. You should probably take the time to scroll through the entire ingredient list to see how many different forms of sugar are included. Here’s a link to a list of the many names that sugar takes. It makes grocery shopping more time-consuming and complicated to do read labels thoroughly but it’s worth it for your health. Another trick: try purchasing/growing as many foods without food labels as possible and cooking your own meals so that you can be in as much control of what goes on your plate and in your mouth as possible.


Leave a comment

More biased research on the wonders of walnuts

url

The California Walnut Board’s been busy lately. The latest study funded by them, to be published in the June issue of The Journal of Nutrition, found that consumption of whole walnuts and walnut oil had a positive effect on blood vessel function following a meal as well as improving the effectiveness of HDL (the “good” cholesterol). This is all lovely but I have a few questions.

I wonder how walnuts and walnut oil fare in comparison to other nuts and oils. I also wonder if there are any long-term implications for these findings. A short-term effect of consumption of a food, both positive and negative, means little in the big picture. Sure, it may very well be true that consumption of walnuts improves cardiovascular health but such a small study (only 15 participants) over such a short period of time: 30 minutes, one hour, two hours, four hours and six hours after administration of treatments really doesn’t tell us much about the impact of walnut consumption on long-term health.

I complain about unscientific practices a lot but science like this is just as bad. Give me a large, long-term, double-blind, study with unbiased researchers and then we can talk about the miracles of walnuts.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 527 other followers