Black Raspberries

Without a doubt black raspberries are good for you. They contain more antioxidants than most other fruits along with anthocyanin, ellagic acid, Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Calcium and many other nutrients. But let’s not get carried away!

The subject came up in one of those health stories on the news last week. The big announcement was that a new study indicates that eating black raspberries might reduce inflammation associated with skin allergies.

The story went on to say that in a study done with mice at Ohio State University and recently published in Nutrients “found that a diet high in black raspberries reduced inflammation from contact hypersensitivity.” They fed one set of mice a normal diet while another set had the equivalent of a daily serving of black raspberries added to their diets. After three weeks the ears of all the mice were exposed to an irritant “that caused contact hypersensitivity. Then, they measured the reductions in swelling, comparing the ears of each mouse.” It turned out that the swelling went down more quickly in the group of black raspberry eaters.

This is interesting and promising, but why does it make the news? Mice are not the same as people, or else drug companies could save a lot of time on human trials. They plainly state, as do most initial studies that it was “an early indication that those benefits might exist” and “more work needs to be done.” 

The health benefits of black raspberries are well known. Other studies both at OSU and elsewhere have shown promise in reducing inflammation associated with some types of cancer. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) published this paper on the benefits of the anti-inflammatory properties of freeze dried black raspberries on ulcerative colitis, a disease that can dramatically increase the risk of colon cancers. Again, the studies were done with mice, not people.

From another OSU press release three years ago: “The researchers have demonstrated the remarkable ability of black raspberries to reduce the development of tumors in animal models of cancer, including the oral cavity, esophagus, and colon.” At that point they were ready to start some limited human trials and were soliciting smokers to test whether giving them regular doses of a black raspberry-rich drink could “protect [them] from oral disease and lower the risk of oral cancer.”

They are clear in their conclusions however. This does not necessarily mean that black raspberries prevent cancer.. “A definitive human study to answer that question would take decades and be cost prohibitive. Instead, researchers will continue to evaluate the influence of berries on biomarkers of cancer in both animal models and short-term clinical trials.”

Of course that sounds too much like science and doesn’t prevent this website from boldly proclaiming: “Black raspberries are a cancer-fighting superfood,” while pushing copies of his book.

This is so typical. News organizations release as health news a preliminary study done with mice, as they cover the TV screen with stock footage of berries at the grocery store. It's an easy job; they don't have to do any work to get the story. Meanwhile, limited studies and early indications are misrepresented as definitive results and to promote the superfood du jour. (A few years ago açaí berries were the new superfood.)

All this hype comes around regularly because Americans tend to ignore the details (critical thinking) and look for the easy answers in the form of supplements and superfoods (discipline). 

Flashback - Food Label Funny Business – Part 2

[Last Friday’s flashback related to serving size, like the “single serve pizza” or the chicken pot pie that each contains two servings. Trust me, it’s easier to cut a small pizza in half than the soupy-centered pie.

This week I flash back to early last year in another example of how important it is to pay attention and to “Read the Label.”  It’s not about serving size this time but about a surprising comparison, finding out an energy drink is about as unhealthy as a gooey donut. Here are the details I shared in January 2019.]

Every gardening class on the use of pesticides repeats the mantra, “Read the Label.” Even a bottle of Lysol brand cleaner has the statement, “It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.” This is true of many other household cleaners, even though most people do not think of them as pesticides (killing bacteria) or otherwise hazardous.

But this little bit of wisdom applies not only to household cleaning and garden chores, but also to what we eat. I found a rather surprising example recently.

Since about 60 years ago Americans began worrying about the amount and types of fat contained in their foods. Eating fat was believed to clog the arteries, and many assumed that the fat in food turned into fat in the body. Government guidelines picked up the message, and most of the funding from about 1970 on went to scientists trying to prove the dangers of fat. 

More recent research shows that we should be more concerned with sugar than with fat. Experts now blame the obesity epidemic on sugar, as cities try to tax or ban sugary soft drinks and experts try to discourage sugar consumption in general. (Sugar moderation is especially important to avoid developing adult-onset diabetes.)

Here is the example that surprised me. Below are pictured two products: a 32-ounce bottle of Gatorade and a container of Boston Cream Donuts from the bakery at my local grocery store. Which would the average person guess contains more sugar? 

 

The Gatorade, as does its rival PowerAde, contains 21 grams of sugar per serving with a little more than 2.5 servings per bottle. That’s 56 grams of sugar as pictured here.

The package of donuts contains 10 grams per serving with 4 servings total. That’s about 28% less sugar in the four donuts pictured compared to a single bottle of sports drink, and the donuts contain less than half the sugar per serving!

How many other surprises are lining the grocery store aisles? We never know unless we read the label.

Failure of many people to do so is how the foodies and other self-proclaimed health experts get away with their absolute rules – never eat prepackaged foods, never eat anything you can’t pronounce, avoid GMOs and gluten. These stances are easy to remember but extreme and often nonsensical. If we just take a minute or two to read the label, we can make good choices without going overboard.

Flashback – Food Label Funny Business

[Over the years I have warned about the importance of reading labels on food packages. Today I will flash back to one of these and next Friday to another. The first emphasizes the importance of paying attention to serving size before taking the package information at face value.

Here, from December 2015 is “Brownie Mix Tricks.”]

This is not about some fancy recipes to make or decorate brownies. It’s  how the information on the box can easily be misleading or deceptive.

On the front of this box of brownie mix the label says, “110 calories.” This looks very reasonable for a dessert.  It is less than two graham crackers, little more than a single chocolate chip cookie.  But let’s look at the fine print.

Trick number one: the serving size is 1/20 of a package. That seems like a very small brownie. When I made them, I cut the finished brownies in an 8x8 pan first in half, then cut each of those slices in half. Then I turned it and cut again in the same way. I had 16 small, square brownies about 2 inches on a side.  Now 1/16 is not 1/20; it’s actually 25 percent larger. So 110 calories becomes almost 140 calories.  But wait!

Trick number two: the front of the package refers us to the nutrition facts label on the side of the package. There it says again 110 calories (with 20 servings per package), but that is for the contents of the package only, the powdery stuff. When you stir in the water, oil and eggs a serving size has 160 calories, which becomes 200 calories for the size brownie I cut, and the calories from fat have increased from 9% to 38%.

So we have a package that honestly and legally reads 110 calories, but the brownie I put in my mouth has 200 calories, nearly double that amount. This seems a little bit tricky, at best. We are expecting one amount and getting nearly twice as much.

The government’s solution to this problem is to make the nutritional labels larger. The behavioral model’s solution to this problem is to promote critical thinking. The government’s solution is the same problem with a bigger font size, but we still have to figure it out for ourselves. At least the behavioral model gives us a chance to be better consumers, as this somewhat trivial case shows. And it also gives us a chance to be more successful in many of life’s more complex challenges (where the government can't solve it for us - we still have to figure it out for ourselves).

P.S.  The brownies were delicious!

Flashback - Health Advice

[Here is a combination of a flashback and an example of how easy it is to predict future news. In November 2013 I wrote the below essay with the title "Secrets to Good Health." This month the BBC ran an article about a BMJ (British Medical Journal) report that men can live an extra 7 years, 10 years for women, of quality life by adopting five healthy habits: never smoking, healthy diet, exercise, body mass index (BMI) between 18.5 and 24.9 and moderate alcohol use. That's substantially what I told readers over 6 years ago in the following flashback.]

As I read this information from Johns Hopkins on how to maintain good eyesight, it occurred to me that products advertised as the secret to good health must be a scam.

This article from a group of medical experts tells that other than regular checkups, to maintain good eyesight “many lifestyle factors that protect our heart health may also help keep our eyes healthy, including being active; getting enough sleep; controlling blood pressure and diabetes; not smoking; maintaining a healthy weight; and eating a diet rich in fish and leafy, green vegetables like spinach and kale. Wow, that’s almost the same advice for every other health concern, not only heart health, but also improving the effects of arthritis, preventing chronic illness , promoting memory and general mental health.

The real secret to good health is that there is no secret.  Health authorities have not been trying to hide anything from us. There is no big secret "doctors don't want you to know."  In fact they have been shouting from the rooftops at every opportunity. We are told over and over on a number of issues that if we want to avoid problems and just generally feel better we should: get enough sleep, eat healthy, drink alcohol only in moderation, stop smoking, get plenty of exercise, drink enough liquids, use sunscreen, wear work gloves or protective eyewear as appropriate, learn relaxation techniques to reduce stress, brush and floss, wash your hands and get a flu shot. This should come as a surprise to no one. We have heard all this advice or subsets of it many times for many years.

The problem with advice like this is that no one wants to hear it. Americans are looking for the easy way, one that requires little discipline. So every time a new diet book is published or the doctors on TV tell us about a miracle cure or another health secret, people want to sign up for the program (and send in their money). They can’t hold an audience by saying the same things over and over, especially when we are so desperate for secrets, so the authors and television personalities must give us secrets.

The real secret is the boring truth – that there is no secret. Like every other endeavor in life, staying healthy requires a little luck and a lot of discipline to stick to the best course of action. The rest is distraction.

Food Labels are Confusing

It began with a local health-news report that led me to the Consumer Reports website. The problem: Food labels are confusing. Not all claims and seals on food packaging can be trusted. 

Consumer Reports wants to help shoppers by making sense of some of the more common labels. But the labels they refer to are the ones designed to lure uninformed shoppers, enticing them to pay more for imaginary benefits like all-natural, non-GMO and organic.

I’ve written before about the science behind GMO foods and organic growing practices. Genetic modification acts as a short cut to the crossbreeding that has been practiced in farming for thousands of years. In some cases it will be the only way to save certain crops from going extinct due to diseases or pests. Organic produce has been tested and found to be marginally cleaner than traditionally grown crops, but if you wash your fruits and vegetables before preparing them, as everyone should, it makes no difference. (See the links for a fuller explanation or enter GMO or Organic in the search box in the upper left of this screen.)

Consumer Reports lists 6 seals of certification rated from fair to excellent: Grass Fed, Certified Humane, Animal Welfare, Non-GMO Project Verified, United Egg Producers, and USDA Organic. A deeper dive tells more about the certification process of each. For example, United Egg Producers Certified is rated fair overall for being very good in terms of verification but poor for animal welfare. Three labels are rated poor: Natural or All Natural, No Antibiotics, Non-GMO.

At a local grocery store I found seven different varieties of large eggs. Prices ranged from $1.09 for one dozen generic eggs in a gray container to $5.79 for a dozen labeled as organic and pasture raised. Priced between them were the cage free; cage free brown; free range; and the no-hormone, no antibiotic eggs. Apparently people will pay five times more for eggs to be reassured that the hens were leading a happy life, frolicking in a pasture. Of course, there is no label to tell how the hens are treated after they reach their 5- to 7-year period of peak production.

These decisions are mostly made by people who have never seen a chicken, pig or cow close up or visited a farm. They get their news from websites like this one that claims “rearing of farm animals today is dominated by industrialized facilities…that maximize profits by treating animals not as sentient creatures…” Each animal, according to them, is a “social, feeling individual capable of experiencing pleasure. The vast majority, however, are only familiar with deprivation, fear, and pain.” (Perhaps they called in an animal psychic or Dr. Doolittle to confirm this statement.)

Another site, with a more realistic and less of a concentration camp concept of farms, contradicts the factual part of the above statements. “About 98% of U.S. farms are operated by families – individuals, family partnerships or family corporations (America’s Diverse Family Farms, 2018 Edition).”

 Is this another form of virtue signaling, paying almost $6 per dozen for eggs because we care so much about chickens we will never meet? It’s no wonder that earlier this month the headline read: Consumer debt reaches record-high of $14 trillion.” As long as the cows, pigs and chickens are happy, what’s five dollars here and there?

Perhaps instead of trying to make sense of the seals and claims to help you understand the meaning behind them, Consumer Reports should have published the fact that most of those are simply marketing tactics playing on the egos, guilt and fears of consumers following the popular sentiment of the day.

What comes in the next issue, how to buy the right saddle for your unicorn?

GMO Green Beans?

On a weekly shopping trip we picked up some whole green beans, a favorite at our house. As she opened them later, my wife commented that they were labeled as Non-GMO. The GMO labeling is a subject of mockery in the family – as is gluten-free, natural, organic and a number of other scientifically meaningless qualifications when it comes to healthy eating for most people.

The first thing I wondered was whether anyone was selling genetically modified green beans. This was not an idle thought. I have previously written about orange juice and tomatoes labeled as non-GMO when, in fact, it is impossible to buy the modified version of either.

I looked up “GMO green beans” and discovered this website which answers the question directly saying, “To date, no GMO green beans have been commercialized.” They go on to say that researchers in Brazil are trying to get approval to work on it. Until then, “breeders of green beans in many world areas are also applying traditional plant breeding methodologies to develop new varieties with better combinations of characteristics…to improve yield, eating quality, and resistance to fungal, bacterial and viral diseases…to enhance the green beans grown and eaten by people, as a component of nutritious and healthful diets.” They are using the slow, old-fashioned method of modification that no one is afraid of.

Because that site seemed to be in favor of GMO technology, I continue to look for more evidence from a source on the other side. The Seattle Organic Restaurants site lists the “Top 20 Foods and Products that have been Genetically Modified.” Green beans are not on the list.

A site called superfoodly asks: "Are Canned Beans Healthy? Here’s The Biggest Safety Danger.” GMOs are not mentioned. The biggest danger according to them is BPA in the packaging. But as they report on it, they admit, “what the science suggests about it doesn’t appear to match the risk perceived by the public.” What is believed to be the number one danger turns out to be a case of ignorance. “Even when rats were fed up to 70,000 times the concentration of BPA that the typical American eats, they didn’t experience a change in hormone levels, weight, or reproductive orders.”

How does Delmonte respond to the challenge? Their website states, “The FDA, USDA, World Health Organization, and the American Medical Association have concluded that products containing genetically engineered ingredients are safe. Even though there are no health risks (allergens or negative nutrients) associated with GMOs, we decided to provide information about GMOs in our products to consumers so that they can make informed choices.” Apparently the informed choice is whether or not to avoid something that has been deemed safe. That makes no sense except by understanding that the job of Delmonte is to sell beans and other food, not to educate the public; and they can certainly sell more by appealing to unwarranted fears of GMOs stirred up by rumors and other misinformation, some of which is purposely disseminated by parties with a financial interest.

That explains why they take a similar stance on BPA. “Cans are lined with epoxy resins, of which BPA is a component…to make the plastic flexible so it completely covers the inside of the can. Based on extensive research, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and many other regulatory agencies around the world have concluded that BPA is safe to use in packaging.” But Delmonte goes on to proudly announce that they don’t use it anyway.

It doesn’t end there. The other side of the label at the top says, “With Natural Sea Salt,” just another phrase with implied (but not real) health benefits targeting superstitious food shoppers. 

The real motive for all these enticing myths displayed on the packaging may be to distract shoppers from the writing on the bottom of the label – 14.5 oz. on a can that used to be 16 oz. That’s the real deception – shrinking packaging with or without BPA raises the price.

This is not intended to pick on Delmonte, everyone does it. It’s easy selling fake benefits to the ignorant public, and it will persist as long as Americans continue to get their health and science information from celebrities, charlatans and social media.

Latest (?) Alzheimer’s News

Isn’t it interesting how the number of Alzheimer’s stories and articles picks up every July? Actually, it’s not a coincidence at all. The annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference® is scheduled for the middle of July. This year it ran from the 14^th to the 18^th in Los Angeles. Naturally, the news media eagerly awaits the latest studies coming out of the conference because the subject of Alzheimer’s Disease or dementia is an emotional draw for so much of their audience.

Since there is still no drug treatment to prevent or cure dementia, the emphasis lately has been on other prevention practices. Is there anything we can do? Yes, there is, and it’s announced as a new breakthrough regularly. But in reality, it differs from year to year by only a few minor tweaks and looks very much like other familiar health advice.

In 2017 a new study, “published in The Lancet and conducted by the first Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention and Care, brought together 24 international experts to review existing dementia research and provide recommendations for treating and preventing the devastating condition.” They concluded that a third of dementia cases “worldwide could potentially be prevented through better management of lifestyle factors such as smoking, hypertension, depression, and hearing loss over the course of a lifetime.” It was presented as a new report. Although the report was new, these recommendations look very familiar. 

For example, in 2015 World Dementia Council (WDC) asked the Alzheimer's Association to evaluate and report on modifiable risk factors, that is, possible prevention steps for cognitive decline and dementia. They concluded that there was “sufficiently strong evidence” that “regular physical activity and management of cardiovascular risk factors (diabetes, obesity, smoking, and hypertension)” along with “a healthy diet and lifelong learning/cognitive training" could have a positive effect.

 And last July similar news came out of their annual meeting, which was held in Chicago. One of the experts announced the results of a large multi-year study: “Lowering blood pressure more than usually recommended not only helps prevent heart problems, it also cuts the risk of mental decline that often leads to Alzheimer's disease.” Getting the top number down to around 120 was shown to lower risk of mild cognitive impairment by 19 percent. (That’s three references to hypertension in four years.)

At that time they reminded readers that the American Heart Association recommends the following lifestyle changes to help manage high blood pressure: balanced diet, alcohol in moderation, regular exercise, weight and stress management, no smoking and taking medications as directed. (It all sounds familiar.)

Not to be deterred by the fact that this is getting a bit repetitious, last week the BBC (and many others) reported on the latest findings revealed at this year's conference with the headline: “Dementia: Lifestyle changes that could lower your risk.” The report outlined the factors associated with a healthy lifestyle: no smoking, eating a healthy diet, getting regular exercise and drinking only in moderation.

I didn’t investigate these studies to mock the findings. I agree with the findings. In fact, it is totally aligned with something I published over 5 years ago, pointing out that there are really no secrets to good health, just the same old advice.

 Rather my intention was to show how the media repeat news stories, rarely questioning whether or not it’s really new. I also discovered, without a hint of surprise, that they will adjust any news story to fit their agenda. In this case as reported by Kaiser Health News (KHN), the Washington Post reported that the study advised, “Ditch the red meat,” and KHN wrote, “Give up red meat.” When I looked at the study details and dug into the (footnote) source they used to define a healthy diet, the wording was “fewer red meats,” not to ditch it or give it up.

That leaves us again with a need for discipline to stick to that common-sense healthy lifestyle and critical thinking to take the news with a large helping of skepticism.

The Future is Here

Some people have expressed the idea that the world depicted in the book 1984 is very close to becoming a reality. With more and more surveillance cameras in public areas, security cameras in homes and businesses, and a camera in everyone’s purse or pocket, Big Brother is always watching.

But there is another way the sci-fi of the past is slowly becoming today's reality, meals in a pill. In many early science fiction novels, the hero never had to slow down to eat. Instead he would pop a pill with all the nutrients, and presumably calories, he needed to continue his mission of saving the universe without missing a beat.

This comes to mind whenever I see or hear an ad for one of those supplements specially formulated for people who don’t have the time or inclination to eat as many fruits and vegetables as they should. They simply go on line and buy a jar of powder or a bottle of pills and, for only about two dollars a day, they can continue their mission of saving their personal universe without missing a beet!

I have heard many customer reviews on the radio over the years and seen some on line as well. Some people seem fairly realistic in their expectations. They admit they are unable to eat enough fruits and vegetables daily, and they believe these products give them nutrition equivalent to what they are missing – although I can’t see much difference between these and an ordinary vitamin/mineral supplement. The only flaw in this thinking is that experts agree that the best way to get nutrition is by eating the actual food.

The companies explain that fruit and vegetables are mostly water. They remove the water and pack the “good stuff” into a bottle or jar. But there is more to a healthy diet than adding the water back and chugging it down. 

The problem is they don’t stop there. By posting the less realistic customer praise and endorsements, they imply that the imaginary benefits some of their customers report are real. This way they don’t run afoul of the FDA or FTC by making promises they can’t keep. But the endorsements imply some miracle power just the same, and they make no effort to deny it.

One company has customers claiming that by using the product, the family has not gotten any colds, aches and pains have gone away, conditions like arthritis and fibromyalgia are no longer a problem, wounds are healing faster, “my hair and nails are growing like crazy,” pregnancy went more smoothly, “my thyroid levels [are] normal again,” blood pressure medicine is no longer needed, everyone can see the difference and everyone feels more healthy and has more energy.

Another brand has customers praising the before and after difference with comments such as: it “cut down on some of my inflammation,” “the congestion in my lungs was clearing up,” “my joints felt better,” it “cleared up lower intestinal discomfort,” and I have “more energy and just feel better."

One customer writes: “Haven't used it long enough for physical effectiveness yet” while another says the change came “almost immediately,” yet another felt a difference in “a couple hours.” Regardless of the time lag, it’s said to be life changing and, of course, awesome.

I’m not a big fan of supplements in general because they are unregulated, and customers have been known to get more, less or different ingredients than what’s on the label; but these particular ones seem like safe products from reputable companies. I suppose these supplements are good for people who unfortunately just can’t figure out how to get enough good food and are willing to pay extra for the convenience. But the ads can easily lead to unrealistic expectations. As one customer review put it: “I was about to order from another company but when it began making claims using people claiming they been cured from cancer and other health problems I decided not and chose this one instead.” He apparently didn't read very closely the similar reviews of the one he chose.

Read Science and Heath News Carefully

My usual approach is to look for several examples that on first glance don’t seem to fit together and show how they all demonstrate weak behavior in some aspect of one of the dimensions. Rarely do I use a single source, but today is an exception.

This article has been circulating on social media as if it were some bold new scientific revelation. In fact, the Bona-Fide News Network site features only the headline and links directly to the article with twelve options for sharing the headline. The headline in question: “Prescription: More Broccoli, Fewer Carbs. How Some Doctors Are Looking To Food To Treat Illness,” appears on the WBUR page.

In summary, it tells of “a growing trend” among doctors to prescribe certain food choices to improve their patient’s health. But in medicine, I’d rather look at evidence than trends, so I will draw heavily from the article to highlight some of its weaknesses. (All emphasis in bold font has been added by me.)

After a story of one success where a patient improves his mental health after changing his diet, the article presents the research. Three recent studies “conclude that a molecule in vegetables like broccoli, cauliflower, brussel [sic] sprouts and kale really may fight cancer. It seems to help reactivate a gene that suppresses many tumors.” In another study, women “who ate a relatively low-fat diet — rich in fruits, vegetables and whole grains — had a lower risk of getting and dying from breast cancer. And in a third, tiny study, [a similar diet] seemed to improve metabolism, boosting levels of proteins that play a role in maintaining cell health and the body’s response to insulin.”

It then makes a huge leap of faith, presenting the opinion of a Dean at Tufts University, “Our food system…is absolutely the number one cause of poor health in our country.” The psychiatrist involved in the first story “thinks that the same switch in energy source [from a different diet] may help combat mental illness” and later “thinks … a strict ketogenic diet … does a better job” than some traditional cures, and “very early evidence suggests” it is effective in treating mental illness.

“In a different study at Northeastern University, researchers are using big data to better understand how individual nutrients affect the body and brain.” But this study is in its infancy and has reached no conclusions.

“Although nutritionists still quibble about the details,” they recommend “vegetables, fruits, beans, nuts and some whole grains” and discourage "processed meats and other processed foods, white bread, chips and soda.” Well, that’s hardly a revelation!

The piece then circles back to conclude with the original human-interest story.

What do we learn for sure from such news? What we eat is important. Older women who reduce fat in their diet raise the odds of avoiding breast cancer. Several experts think it is true and early evidence seems to indicate that certain foods may have specific benefits, but confirmation of those benefits is a long way off. Until then we have doctors following trends and news media forced to hype this kind of vague information to meet an obligation to fill the airways 24/7.

The real lesson is that no one else will review the content critically before it gets to you. Headlines are advertising for the articles. The vague details and weasel words come later.

Super Foods

Critical thinking leads me to believe that all the talk about super foods is crazy. People read about some newly christened super food, adopt it in the hope of improving their lives, convince themselves that they feel so much better, and spread the word. This is particularly dangerous in the case of celebrities. 

Here is a sample I pulled from a Gannett article over four years ago.

Alas, for 2015 we find out that quinoa is out and kaniwa, “sourced primarily from the Andes Mountain region of South America,” is this year’s super-food, “high in protein, fiber, iron and calcium” and gluten-free!  In the search for a better sweetener, “coconut sugar is making its way onto the scene.” Actually, all things coconut are in fashion as part of the Paleo food trend.  Almonds are out and pistachios are in along with Nduja and spreadable salami.

Just last year I commented on a TV ad for beet powder as a circulation super food, with the power to support increased energy without stimulants, promote heart health and support healthy blood pressure levels. (Notice how these products sold as supplements always support and promote without really promising to do anything definite.)

Finally, here is one from this year that sounds extremely confident and enthusiastic. It begins: “Move over kale, quinoa, and coconut water! …There are some new superfoods on the block, packed with powerful nutritional benefits and exotic tastes.” To reduce the shock of finding yet another new super food, they remind us how the super-food trends of today would seem “rather bizarre” just a few years ago – now that’s comforting!

It continues: “These are the superfood trends you should not only watch out for, but get excited about.” Included in the list are nut oil, chaga mushrooms, cassava flour, watermelon seeds and tiger nuts; and try maqui berries, instead of the so-passé goji and acai. Wash it all down with some probiotic water. When making your heart-healthy smoothy, try substituting moringa for your matcha, maca or spirulina. (Who does this stuff?)

That’s why I was so pleased to find this article. Although when I saw the headline, “The Definitive Superfood Ranking,” I expected more of the same, the picture showed apples and broccoli, so there was hope that some sanity would prevail. 

The piece begins: “It seems like everything in the grocery store is labeled ‘super’…[but] which foods are actually proven, by science, to be good for you and which ones are all hype.” They go on to say that many dietitians think the term super foods should be eliminated because it is so misleading, sometimes intentionally so by food marketers. Such labeling raises the price and promises to do what no single food can do alone, make you healthy.

The article begins by exposing the gluten-free myth. “Unless you have celiac disease or suffer from a true gluten intolerance (example: you are doubled over and running for the bathroom post-pizza), there are no proven physical benefits from going gluten-free.” Then it explains how orange juice is not the best source of Vitamin C and adds that the benefits of coconut oil, chia seed, kimchi, sweet potatoes, almonds, acai and beets are more hype than reality.

At this point in the story, the emphasis changes to address truly healthy foods: eggs, cherry juice, broccoli, coffee, apples, green tea, black beans, dark chocolate, red wine, salmon, turmeric and blueberries. Each are backed by some valid scientific research and their prices are not inflated by fads and hype. (I also noticed that not a single one of them caused problems with my spell-check, unlike about half of the so-called super foods in the lists above.)

Wow! Are real foods eaten in moderation the answer? Despite that, the odds are good that in 2020 someone will discover another new super food in some remote jungle, and the masses will jump on board. (Excluding those who were mauled to death trying to harvest tiger nuts!)

Being Careful About What You Eat

It looks like a number of essays recently have been about food, but since I steer away from politics to show more everyday behavior, the healthy food stories tend to jump out. I found a number of fairly recent stories about whether being picky about our food is worth the effort. 

The marketing departments of food companies go out of their way to make us feel guilty about eating the wrong things and to reassure us that we are making wise food decisions. But how much is true and how much is hype?

Many packages are labeled as healthy. Does that have any real meaning? 

The FDA is in the process of redefining their guidance on this subject, updating it from the 2016 version that read in part: “this guidance is intended to advise food manufacturers of our intent to exercise enforcement discretion relative to foods that use the implied nutrient content claim 'healthy' on their labels which:

(1) Are not low in total fat, but have a fat profile makeup of predominantly mono and polyunsaturated fats; or
(2) contain at least ten percent of the Daily Value (DV) per reference amount customarily consumed (RACC) of potassium or vitamin D.”

They conclude “guidances describe our current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations.” All that seems as clear as mud! So we keep seeing "healthy" on all sorts of packages.

What about organic? The government does have strict guidelines about what can be considered organic, but still there is no guarantee. As this article from last October shows: “Three Nebraska farmers will plead guilty to knowingly marketing non-organic corn and soybeans as certified organic as part of a lengthy, multi-million-dollar fraud scheme.” This had been going on for many years.

A few months earlier, this news came from the Genetic Literacy Project. “The U.S. Department of Agriculture fails at regulation of organic food as fraudulent products overwhelm the agency’s conflicted, compromised system.”

Furthermore, as I discussed in detail last May, the USDA organic program allows some pesticides not classified as synthetic, and tests only for those pesticides disallowed by the program. Organic pesticides are not necessarily safer and all products – organic or synthetic – have the potential to be toxic. The careful approach is not in the food supply but in food preparation, as in washing all fruit and vegetables thoroughly.

 The use of natural is even foggier.

The FDA has asked for pubic comment “on the use of this term in the labeling of human food products” as a result of three citizen petitions asking for a clear definition, another one asking that the term be prohibited on labels and several court cases requested clarification.

 It leaves us asking whether these terms are really helpful or just the usual advertising jargon. It shouldn’t surprise us when, just last month there was a nationwide recall of more than 68,000 pounds of “gluten free Organics Breaded Chicken Breast Nuggets.” But they sounded so healthy and natural!

It takes some critical thinking to get to the bottom of all this, but what is really called for here is a dose of perspective. There was a time when everyone didn’t worry so much about the credentials of their food. Many were just happy to have it. And that went for everything we put in our mouths. Consider the study a couple of years ago that cleaner surroundings were not necessarily healthier for infants, making them more prone to developing allergies. And books like Let Them Eat Dirt, warned about the dangers an over-sanitized world posed for children.

Yet advertisers find that these words, and others like green and sustainable, can have an almost hypnotic effect, causing consumers to turn off their critical thinking and just trust the labels.

Read The Label

Every gardening class on the use of pesticides repeats the mantra, “Read the Label.” Even a bottle of Lysol brand cleaner has the statement, “It is a violation of Federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.” This is true of many other household cleaners, even though most people do not think of them as pesticides (killing bacteria) or otherwise hazardous.

But this little bit of wisdom applies not only to household cleaning and garden chores, but also to what we eat. I found a rather surprising example recently.

Since about 60 years ago Americans began worrying about the amount and types of fat contained in their foods. Eating fat was believed to clog the arteries, and many assumed that the fat in food turned into fat in the body. Government guidelines picked up the message, and most of the funding from about 1970 on went to scientists trying to prove the dangers of fat. 

More recent research shows that we should be more concerned with sugar than we are with fat. Experts now blame the obesity epidemic on sugar, as cities try to tax or ban sugary soft drinks and experts try to discourage sugar consumption in general. (Sugar moderation is especially important to avoid developing adult-onset diabetes.)

Here is the example that surprised me. Below are pictured two products: a 32-ounce bottle of Gatorade and a container of Boston Cream Donuts from my local grocery store. Which would the average person guess contains more sugar? 

 

The Gatorade, as with its rival PowerAde, contains 21 grams of sugar per serving with 2.5+ servings in the bottle. That’s 56 grams of sugar as pictured here.

The package of donuts contains 10 grams per serving with 4 servings total. That’s about 28% less sugar in the four donuts pictured compared to a single bottle of sports drink, and the donuts contain less than half the amount of sugar per serving!

How many other surprises are lining the grocery store aisles? We never know unless we read the label.

Failure of many people to do so is how the foodies and other self-proclaimed health experts get away with their absolute rules – never eat prepackaged foods, never eat anything you can’t pronounce, avoid GMOs and gluten. These stances are easy to remember but extreme and often nonsensical. If we just take a minute or two to read the label, we can make good choices without going overboard.

Natural Food and Holy Water

True story: Some years ago an older woman visiting her Catholic church noticed the baptismal font was empty. She saw the maintenance worker nearby and told him about it. She was shocked when she saw him run a garden hose through the window to refill it. He explained that the priest would come by to bless it later. 

In a sense natural food is a lot like holy water. It is often as much about faith as anything else. And now people are fighting like a bunch of theologians about what is and is not natural.

The question arises from a lawsuit against LaCroix sparkling water. The company advertises that the beverage contains no calories or artificial flavors and that it is enhanced with natural essences. But what those essences are is a trade secret. Customers don’t have a clue as to the meaning of “naturally essenced” written on the cans. They assume that natural means good. 

But the class-action lawsuit filed last month claims that “LaCroix's all-natural claims are false and that these natural ingredients are actually synthetic.” Although some of the ingredients can be derived naturally, they are listed by the FDA as synthetic and can be found in such products as insecticides. “Popular Science breaks down why the argument doesn't seem to hold up, noting that none of the ingredients mentioned in the case are considered dangerous.”

This is reminiscent of the “devastating news” a few years ago about wood fiber in grated cheese. Actually it was cellulose, but wood fiber sounds scarier. It’s used to reduce clumping, but some companies were adding more than the allowable 4%. No one was hurt and the fuss was far out of proportion to any actual impact. It was more about the principle of purity and the fact that wood fiber in cheese makes a good headline.

Another example comes from the makers of Prevagen, a highly advertised memory supplement derived from jellyfish protein. A minor problem is that they don’t actually get the protein from jellyfish. They synthesize it in the lab. A much bigger problem is that it has not been shown to be effective – it doesn’t do what it claims.

But the natural labelling issue is troubling for some. The main objection is the lack of a clear definition for the term as shown in the following statement. “Although the FDA has not engaged in rulemaking to establish a formal definition for the term ‘natural,’ we do have a longstanding policy concerning the use of ‘natural’ in human food labeling. The FDA has considered the term ‘natural’ to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic...has been added….” 

But does a formal definition make that much difference? There is no question that green tea is natural. BBC Good Food told us about it last July. “With origins going back as far as 5,000 years, green tea is commonly drunk and widely grown in the Far East where the health properties are well regarded.” Later in the same article they say that evidence of its health benefits are "largely inconclusive" and that although “many ‘health’ products now include traces of green tea…there is limited evidence to suggest these products are effective.”

Last week came a sterner warning from BBC Health on the same subject. “When Jim McCants started taking green tea pills he had hoped he was giving his health a shot in the arm. Instead, it appears the pills caused such serious damage to his liver that it required an urgent transplant.” Though this is highly unusual, it can happen.

So natural doesn’t necessarily mean healthy; it doesn’t even always mean safe. Many other substances are natural and not safe, nicotine, for example. The shock when people hear this is like finding out holy water can come from a garden hose. It drives many into denial.

The difference is that holy water is a matter of faith and healthy food is a matter of science. What’s important is whether it is safe and beneficial, not whether it’s natural (whatever that means).

Living Longer (continued) – Same Old Boring Advice

For the last two weeks, we have been looking at commonly mistaken solutions in the search for a longer life. There is no shortage of unverified exercises, tricks, potions and diets claiming to help us live longer. Many years ago a TV commercial featured some very wrinkled people living in the remote Russian steppes whose secret to a longer life was eating yogurt. These days everyone eats yogurt, and the more exotic the better, with little to show for it.

Sadly the trick to living longer is not yogurt or supplements or more vacations. It’s not being lazy to save your energy as this piece argues. Instead about every few months, like clockwork, the health-news segments present a new study or often the same old studies with the same old boring advice.

One that resurfaces every few years is a Harvard study revealing the five things anyone could do to raise the chances of living longer. (More details about the study came out in MarketWatch just last July.)

It was also published by the Harvard Gazette back in April with the headline: “Five healthy habits to live by,” and told of the five habits, if adopted in adulthood, that could add approximately 14 years to women’s life expectancy and 12 years to men’s. 

The five so-called secrets uncovered by this study were (drumroll, please) “eating a healthy diet, exercising regularly, keeping a healthy body weight, not drinking too much alcohol, and not smoking.” I hope no one paid a lot of money for a study basically telling us what everyone already knew (but most didn’t want to hear). 

But in May 2016 a source called the Thrillist reviewed a different Harvard study on the same subject. “For 75 years (and counting), researchers have been following the same 600+ people to determine what makes a long, healthy, and happy life.” This longitudinal study, following the same subjects over an extended period, came up with seven secrets. Of course there is considerable overlap: keep learning, don’t smoke, don’t abuse alcohol, exercise, maintain a healthy weight, adapt well to setbacks, and have positive relationships.

Actually, the study reported in 2016 was a combination of two simultaneous studies, one with 263 participants and the other with over 300. The first of these was reported on in the Huffington Post in August 2013 with the headline: "The 75-Year Study That Found The Secrets To A Fulfilling Life.” This one was based on an interview with the author of a 2004 book on the subject. The main differences between the studies, the focus on relationships and coping, are explained by the fact that this study was as concerned with happiness as with longevity.

So the secret to a longer life is not a secret at all. It has been publicized for well over a decade with the common-sense equivalent going back many years before. As I explained two Fridays ago, it just takes some combination of critical thinking and common sense, perspective, economic understanding - not throwing away good money on junk science - and discipline to stick to a sensible routine.

Of course, if none of that common sense advice appeals to you because it lacks tricks and secrets and requires discipline, follow the latest advice for living longer from this New York Times article, based on yet another study – play more tennis!

Are We Poisoning Our Kids - Again?

Now here is a headline to get your attention: “Weed Killer in $289 Million Cancer Verdict Found in Oat Cereal and Granola Bars.” The story goes on to tell how EWG (Environmental Working Group) scientists found that almost three-fourths of their samples of oat products, including children’s cereals, contained glyphosate (the chemical in the weed killer, RoundUp) at levels higher than they consider “protective of children’s health with an adequate margin of safety.” 

This news came out last week and, in a fit of confirmation bias, social media picked it up and ran with it. It gave the food purists a chance to say, “I told you so,” while giving the environmental groups and natural news outlets a chance to scare parents with another threat to the health of their children.

Another website announced: “Kellogg's cereals found to be contaminated with Monsanto's cancer-causing glyphosate.” They went on to call the situation “horrific,” “health-destroying” and “shocking,” noting, “a research division of the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the ingredient as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans.’” 

In the face of this panic, NBC tried to be a calming influence in light of those “startling headlines” about RoundUp in cereals “swamping social media and scaring parents.” Their headline read: “A report by an environmental group disregards accepted evidence about safe levels of the chemical.” They point out that EWG has been waging an on-going campaign against the chemical and that the study making headlines “was not published in a peer-reviewed journal.” That means other scientists had no opportunity to review methods and findings before publication, checking that they followed valid scientific procedures and that their conclusions are trustworthy.

NBC goes on to remind readers that both the Environmental Protection Agency and the European Food Safety Authority have said glyphosate probably doesn’t cause cancer in humans and to remind them as well that jury rulings aren’t required to consider the scientific evidence and often don’t. Finally, it’s an accepted fact in toxicology that the dosage makes the poison – during the same week the media featured a story about how too much water can be harmful, and don't forget that too much sunlight also causes cancer.

WebMD does not deny the presence of the chemical but quotes toxicologists as saying, “a single serving of most of the foods [EWG] tested, eaten each day for a lifetime, would cause just one additional case of cancer in every million people.” The danger is extremely low and “definitely wouldn’t outweigh the health benefits of eating oats.” 

Many toxicologists argue that the WHO’s finding of “probably carcinogenic” is particularly cautious and leaves much room for doubt. But this opinion is a staple in any anti-RoundUp publication.

It’s important to note that these last two sources don’t have an ax to grind with Monsanto or its products, whereas the first two come into the discussion (and research) with an established bias. (It’s like inviting vegetarians to a bacon tasting event.) Furthermore the first was posted by the very group that ran the (not-peer-reviewed) tests and the second was posted almost three years ago (Thursday, September 10, 2015). They have been pushing this agenda for a long time.

Very little research and critical thinking can avert the panic. These stories will continue to crop up from time to time and are sure to spread now that so many people primarily get their news from dubious sources like FaceBook.

Most people don’t remember the headline: “Hazardous Chemical In Children’s Cereal.” About 18 months ago some were also outraged about chemicals in cereals our children eat. They wanted this carcinogen removed even though it is found in toothpaste, mouthwash, shampoo and cosmetics but has been declared safe by the FDA. It was not glyphosate; it was Trisodium Phosphate. The website said they had been warning about this danger for over 3 years.

When in doubt, they resurrect a scary story about poison cereal!

What We Think We Know For Sure

A few weeks ago my niece was in the mall talking on her phone to her mom, my sister. In the middle of the conversation, a man working there walked up and interrupted to tell her that it was a proven scientific fact that holding a cellular phone next to her head would cause brain cancer. She politely thanked him and continued her conversation.

In point of fact, there is no such proven science, and this has been known for many years. This government website states: “The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating…Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy.” They go on to cite findings from several organizations including the American Cancer Society, the FDA and the CDC. Those groups’ conclusions vary slightly between evidence not strong enough, no conclusive evidence and no relationship.

But people get these ideas stuck in their heads and swear by them. Even if you can quote the findings, backing them up with links and references, they will likely not change their minds. A couple of similar examples come from omega-3 fatty acids and dairy fat from milk and butter. Many believe the former is good for your heart, so gulp down the fish oil pills, and the latter causes heart problems. New research puts both these ideas in doubt.

From a recent Medical News Today article: “Studies have shown that those who consume fish regularly as part of a healthful, balanced diet are at a lower risk of heart problems. But the National Institutes of Health (NIH) explain that research is unclear as to whether these benefits come from fish or omega-3 in particular.” So no one knows if omega-3 itself has a positive effect, yet 20 million Americans buy supplements believing that they are doing the heart-healthy thing.

The HIH study reviewed 79 randomized trials with a total of over 112,000 subjects, which looked at the cardiovascular effects of taking omega-3 supplements. The supplements had "little or no effect" on death risk from any causes or on the risk of cardiovascular events, stroke, or irregular heartbeat. Eating walnuts or fortified products such as margarine "probably makes little or no difference.” Their overall conclusion – “Diet may help, but supplements do not.”

Of course advertisers take advantage of any misconception. They keep posting contains omega-3 on packages. If enough people believed in it and were influenced to buy, companies would add any substance endorsed by the current craze. (At least the superstitious American health enthusiasts don’t endanger elephants and rhinos like their Asian counterparts do.)

On the opposite side of the fence is the dairy industry. We have been misinformed for the last 60 years about the harmful effects of fat, told to avoid whole milk and butter. The theory was that fat eaten was absorbed into the blood and distributed around the body – wrong. The problem is sugar, but the fat-banners won the battle for the hearts and minds of the public and the politicians. 

Hence, average per capita annual milk consumption in America has dropped from 30 gallons in 1970s to 18 gallons today. This report tells of a new study of 2,907 adults that found “people with higher and lower levels of dairy fats in their blood had the same rate of death during a 22-year period.” They describe it as part of an “ongoing vindication process for saturated fats” like those found in milk, cheese, and butter. (Even 15 years ago the evidence was coming to light.) “The researchers concluded that dairy-fat consumption later in life does not significantly influence total mortality.’”

What do advertisers and food companies do in light of the facts that have been emerging over the last ten years? They play to the misinformed and to the conventional wisdom by developing (more expensive) milk from almonds, soybeans, cashews, hemp, rice, etc. to save the health-conscious from the dreaded “moo-juice.” They prominently display omega-3 (and other hyped-up additives) on their labels to give the impression of putting our health ahead of profits. It's left to the consumer to sort it out. Be skeptical, not gullible.

The Fad Diet Strikes Again!

Even though Americans should react to the news of another diet fad the same way they do to the news of an epidemic of shark attacks, they don’t. Instead of fleeing, enough fall in line to merit an article on the Huffington Post site.

This time the gimmick to lose weight is intermittent fasting. The piece begins, “For years, we’ve been told it’s important to eat breakfast within an hour of waking up, to rev up our metabolism and get our day started right.” So apparently the writer has not been reading the Huffington Post for years because, as I wrote in February 2017, they reported that breakfast had been declared optional. But by May of this year, “experts” had once again reversed course on that decision.

Intermittent fasting is the newest answer to our prayers. “The technique relies on restricting your eating to set times and alternating between feasting and fasting” and is considered by its proponents as more of a lifestyle than a diet. It’s more about when you eat than what you eat, although to be successful it still requires healthy food choices. (Aren’t those ideas of lifestyle and food choices essential for any successful weight-loss program?)

There are several flavors of intermittent fasting. The 16:8 plan is most common and most reported on. Eat meals “within an eight-hour window” and then fast (and sleep) for the rest of the day. The 5:2 plan involves restricting calories to 500 on two nonconsecutive days each week. Alternate day fasting involves fasting every other day (500 calories) and eating whatever you want with no calorie restrictions on alternate days.

The first method may present a challenge for “people who have busy family lives or social commitments.” The second “can have an impact on a person’s sleep, mood and energy level.” And the third has been found by a JAMA Internal Medicine study to be no more effective than a restricted-calorie diet. And any one of them “can be particularly dangerous for people with certain health conditions.”

But it’s all for a good cause. How else are we supposed to lose weight if not for the latest fad diet? It’s a hard job made harder by the purveyors of fast food, fancy coffee, streaming entertainment and not enough sidewalks. Then there are all the excuses about genetics.

Consider those excuses and what science (from Harvard) has to say. “In 1990, obese adults made up less than 15 percent of the population in most U.S. states. By 2010, 36 states had obesity rates of 25 percent or higher, and 12 of those had obesity rates of 30 percent or higher. Today, nationwide, roughly two out of three U.S. adults are overweight or obese (69 percent) and one out of three is obese (36 percent).” 

The USDA index of food consumption shows that the per person intake of calories increased by 22% from 1990 to 2006. We have been eating more (and moving less). What do we expect? 

Consider also the cost, as presented by the Business Insider. “According to a 2010 study, direct obesity related medical expenses in America are $160 billion per year. The estimated indirect costs? $450 billion." Costs include more food, larger clothing, increased energy consumption (fuel and electricity), weight loss programs, and obesity related medical care. Medical problems lead to missed work, decreased productivity and short-term disability expenses, which we all pay for when we buy goods or services from the businesses that have to cover those costs.

This is a problem, but it’s one people can solve on their own a lot faster when they finally stop looking for magic answers. When we hear about the latest diet fad, we should run as if it were a shark attack. And the exercise would be good for the waistline.