Dispelling nutrition myths, ranting, and occasionally, raving


4 Comments

Hollywood juice bar owner’s diet analyzed

16169303807_54a5ebcda3_z

Photo of Green Juice by Marten Persson on Flickr. Used under a Creative Commons Licence.

In case you missed it last week, the Internets got their collective panties in a twist about this article sharing a typical day of food for the founder of Moon Juice.

Moon Juice, for those such as myself who are not in the know, is ostensibly the most popular juice bar in LA.

Pardon me for not being surprised that her diet includes ridiculous things that I’ve never heard of before and am not entirely convinced are actually food. Things like Brain Dust and quinton shots. Ugh.

People immediately began decrying her diet. Just for fun, I decided to do a completely unscientific analysis of the nutrient content of her food to see just how her food stacks up when compared to a diet of recognizable food items. I used the nutritional info listed for the products on the Moon Juice website where I could. For everything else I just googled for nutrition information. I only looked at macronutrients, so it remains to be told how nutritious her diet is in terms of micronutrients.

Breakfast: 307 kcal, 13g CHO, 17.5g fat, 27g protein, 7g fibre, 3g sugar

Snack: 284 kcal, 31.1g CHO, 12g fat, 2.5g fibre, 8g sugar, 9g protein

Lunch: 265 kcal, 20g fat, 10.7g CHO, 4g fibre, 5.9g sugar, 6.3g protein

Snack: 353 kcal, 36.9g CHO, 8.5g fibre, 21.7g sugar, 22.5g fat, 7g protein

Snack: 280 kcal, 30g CHO, 6g fibre, 6g sugar, 4g fat, 26g protein

Supper: 50 kcal, 9g CHO, 0.5g fibre, 0.7g sugar, 0.6g fat, 5g protein – Potentially an entire day’s worth of sodium in this meal alone!

Snack: (Nutrition info for Heart Tonic is unknown, estimating the nutrient values for the chocolate based on single servings of all the ingredients mentioned) 174 kcal, 5g CHO, 3g fibre, 4.5g fat, 21g protein – I find it hard to believe that this chocolate is remotely palatable without any added sugar but maybe that’s just me.

Totals for the day: 1713 kcal, 135.7g CHO, 81.1g fat, 101.3g protein, 31.5g fibre, 45.3g sugar

I must confess, I’m a little disappointed that her diet didn’t show any glaring imbalances. Overall, it’s maybe a little low in carbs, and a little high in protein and fat and sugar. But essentially, it’s actually fairly well balanced.

I would be a little concerned about calcium, vitamin D, and vitamin B12 consumption for someone following this diet. Also, the sodium is quite high. Not knowing her energy requirements it’s hard to say whether or not 1700 kcal is adequate. That would depend on her height, weight, level of activity, and resting metabolic rate.

Even though this diet is not horribly balanced I still wouldn’t recommend it to anyone. Why? Well, variety is very important in a balanced diet. Based on the fact that she seems to eat essentially the same things every day she’s quite likely not getting all of the micronutrients that she needs. She may also be getting excessive amounts of others through her supplements.

Speaking of the supplements, there’s quite a few ingredients in there that are questionable at best. I don’t think that anyone can say with any degree of certainty that they’re safe to consume on a regular basis. Although one can say with a fair degree of certainty that they won’t live up to the claims. They’re definitely not worth the hefty price tags. Although if you’re willing to spend $55 for a 25 serving jar of Brain Dust then you probably need all the help you can get maintaining “healthy systems for superior states of cognitive flow”.

 

 


Leave a comment

Follow Friday: Julia vs Gwyneth

url-1

Lots of talk on the twitterverse about Gwyneth Paltrow’s new cookbook It’s All Good. While I haven’t seen it myself, and the recipes therein may be perfectly tasty and nutritious, she’s been slammed for including quackery in her forward. Julia Belluz has an article in MacLean’s detailing what aspects of Gwynnie’s advice are pseudoscience and why these statements are potentially damaging to readers. As I’ve mentioned before, I find it exceedingly frustrating that nearly everyone thinks they’re a nutrition expert and people readily latch on to ideas extolled by celebs. Just because you eat (and seemingly in Gwyneth’s case, this may be an overstatement) does not make you a dietitian.


3 Comments

Eggs: Get quacking

A friend sent me a link to an article entitled “10 Reasons to Eat Your Yolks” looking for my opinion. In my opinion, yolks are great. They’re where much of the nutrition in the egg is stored. One egg yolk provides about 60 calories, 22 mg calcium, 0.75 mg of iron, 2.7 g protein, 0.8 mcg of vitamin D, among other nutrients. Of course, the white is a great source of protein with very few calories. One large egg white has about 3.3 g protein and only 16 calories.

As great as egg yolks are, as with pretty much any food, you can have too much of a good thing. The fat (5.56 g) and cholesterol (203 mg) in the yolk may be of concern to people with high cholesterol. Yes, dietary cholesterol contributes very little to blood cholesterol levels but it’s still prudent to reduce all controllable risk factors.

Okay, so what’s my problem with the article? It makes a lot of relatively unsubstantiated claims. I say relatively because there are references sited for most of them but all of the references have the same author. This author, Michael Murray is a naturopathic doctor. Two major red flags there. If you can only find one researcher to support your claims there may be a reason for that. Additionally, while I believe that there can be medicinal benefits to traditional medicines I still like there to be actual proof that they work. The blend of legitimate science and pseudoscience that naturopaths sell makes me extremely uncomfortable. And speaking of selling, I don’t think that you should trust a “doctor” that will sell you a “cure”. There is a distinct conflict of interest there. Anyway… Back to the egg article. Murray is cited on QuackWatch for making a number of nutrition-related claims lacking scientific validity. I would add the following claims to that list: that eggs will lower cholesterol and that eggs will reduce risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.

Along with Murray, the article cites research on WHFoods. This “research” included a study in which participants lost more weight eating two eggs for breakfast than participants eating a bagel for breakfast. File that under “duh”. Of course you’re going to lose more weight if you eat 180 calories for breakfast than if you eat 400 calories for breakfast given all other variables are the same over both groups. I wouldn’t trust much of the so-called research found on whfoods. This site is run by the George Mateljan Foundation and their website states that they’re a non-profit organization with no commercial interests or advertising. Supposedly Mateljan is a “nutritionist” but I can’t find anything to show any credentials beyond cooking school and an interest in nutrition. In addition, a number of the contributors to the site appear to be quacks (e.g. Joseph E. Pizzorno and Kerry Evans). Many of these contributors are connected to SaluGenecists (which is a “natural health” organization which states that it founded WHFoods on its website) and Bastyr University (a natural health university which appears to be a legitimate educational institute upon first glance, but a light scratch at the surface shows that they are just peddling naturopathic pseudoscience – was that redundant?).

After a little digging through the layers, it seems that WHFoods, and all of the claims in the article which prompted this post, are based on unsubstantiated pseudoscience.