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). 

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!)

Food Labeling

It’s interesting how many food items are being relabeled to take advantage of all the misinformation in the news and on social media. They label food as containing no high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). That simply means it contains sugar instead.  One is no better or worse for you than the other. If something is labeled as containing no sugar, it’s likely to contain an artificial sweetener. There are all kinds of rumors about how dangerous artificial sweeteners are. Some are labeled as no sugar added, but may have more natural sugar than a comparable product without the label. Everyone should easily be able to figure out that these special labels make little difference to the actual wholesomeness of the food. So why do the food companies make such an effort?

Apparently, it’s because most people don’t go to the trouble to figure this out.  The labels are shortcuts allowing them to follow their superstition of choice – yes, superstition. They are no different than the Salem Witch Trials except no one is killed, but they use the same tactics of mass hysteria.  Someone or some group pick up the chant of avoiding sugar or HFCS or artificial anything or GMOs or gluten (for most healthy people) and people choose to ignore evidence and climb on board the Superstition Express. 

One of the worst cases is the anti-GMO movement. The unreasonable opposition to GMOs starves people and adds to climate change. The promise of increased yields from smaller fields along with reduced reliance on pesticides and fertilizers supports the effort to reduce greenhouse gases and should be embraced by anyone concerned about climate change, but they pick and choose their cause. Mitch Daniels, president of Purdue University, calls the stance against GMOs both anti-science and immoral emphasizing the absence of evidence that these products have hurt anyone or have been a detriment to the environment –“no disruption of an ecosystem nor any adverse human health or even digestive problems, after 5 billion acres have been cultivated cumulatively and trillions of meals consumed.” It’s a distraction and political football that keeps good food from hungry people in less-developed countries.

The typical reaction is referred to in this article as the “healthy halo.” Food companies have found that certain labels elicit a positive response, regardless of logic, making consumers more likely to buy and more likely to pay more. To test this, researchers from Cornell University asked 115 shoppers to give their opinions of the value of snack foods based only on their labels. “People thought foods labeled ‘organic’ were more nutritious, lower in fat, and higher in fiber than the ‘regular’ foods, and were willing to pay up to 23.4 percent more for the food labeled as organic.” The difference was in the labels only: all the study participants were eating the same foods. The ink is cheap and the ability to increase the price by over 20 percent merely by adding one word to the label would be a marketing homerun for any company! And millions of superstitious Americans let them get away with it.

The manufacturers don’t care. And if it gives them an advantage in the market, they will even endorse any error or misconception their customers may have. It’s really sad.

Being Misled About Multivitamins

I have been writing about a couple of related subjects lately. Last Monday’s theme was that no amount of consumer protection will keep the charlatans of the health industry from coming up with enticing schemes based on junk science. Americans must use critical thinking to avoid the traps that lead to certain financial loses and possible physical harm. The second is that much of what makes the news as “a new study” or “latest research” is merely a rehash of previous discoveries, traditional understanding or common sense.

Here is another example from last week characterized as a new study, attacking what to many is a “sacred cow,” which is why it has been ignored for so many years.

Canadian researchers found: “Popular vitamin and mineral supplements didn't provide any measurable health benefits to prevent cardiovascular disease, stroke or early death.” They also “found no helpful or harmful outcomes for people who took multivitamins, vitamin D, calcium and vitamin C.” But this was not based on comparing medical records for a large number of people. Instead findings came from a review and analysis of existing information, many other studies mostly around from 2012 through the fall of 2017 – in other words, old news with information confirmed many times over.

A quick search of the Internet yields many of these previous studies. A CBS News story from December 2013 carries the headline: “Multivitamin researchers say ‘case is closed’ after studies find no health benefits.” The advice back then was to save your money because “supplementing the diet of well-nourished adults with (most) mineral or vitamin supplements has no clear benefit and might even be harmful.” Studies backing up this announcement were not trivial. One tracked 24 studies and two trials involving more than 350,000 individuals. A second followed 5,950 older male doctors over a 12-year period under controlled conditions. Another of 1,700 heart patients showed “no difference in rates of another heart attack, chest pain, the need for hospitalization, cardiac catheterization, or rates of stroke and early death between vitamin-takers and placebo-takers.”

Clearly, this is not new. Many professionals have recognized the ineffectiveness of multivitamins for a long time. Five years ago the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) decided not to recommend the regular use of any multivitamins or of any herbal supplements and recommended against taking additional beta-carotene or vitamin E.

But what about the earlier comment that they found no helpful or harmful outcomes? This comes from the USA Today last summer.  “Taking too much vitamin B6 and B12 could dramatically increase lung cancer in men, according to a new study.” That study consisted of more than 77,000 patients followed for more than 10 years. 

The majority opinion is that these supplements have no benefits, and adverse side effects are possible. So, as this headline reads, why do “Americans Spend Billions on Vitamins and Herbs That Don’t Work”? The numbers vary from one source to another, but the amount spent on vitamins and herbal supplements, which can be far more dangerous, ranges from $30 billion to $37 billion per year, and that number is expected to grow with an aging population and increased health concerns.

Sales typically make up “5 percent of all grocery sales in the United States” with profit margins nearly ten times higher. But despite the high cost and years of research 50% of Americans take at least one multivitamin and about 20%, take other supplements as well. Have they not been paying attention?

The explanation is simple. The power of the industry and the accompanying superstitions that drive people to the magic of supplements and so-called health foods is frightening. As an example, one of the references I cited above proclaiming the dangers and impurities in supplements has an accompanying link to one of those you-may-also-be-interested articles entitled: “11 Vitamins and Supplements That Boost Energy.” After warning of the dangers in the first article, the second sings the praises of a bunch of airy-fairy herbs and chemicals. Everyone should know better, but there is no escaping the hype.

New Study, Indeed!

Here is another no-brainer for the discipline-challenged.  According to this source, researchers at Harvard University released late last month “a major study” investigating the influence of behavior on longevity.  They used lifestyle questionnaires and medical records from 123,000 volunteers to understand how much longer people could live if they made some simple adjustments to their lifestyle.

The dramatic headline read: Five Habits That Can Add More Than a Decade to Your Life.”  That is an announcement sure to capture attention, especially for people looking for the easy answer, the magic bullet, to ensure longevity.  In this era of fads and gurus one is tempted to suspect such a new discovery would be about a vegan diet, avoiding processed foods with their additives and preservatives, eating only local or organic produce, going gluten-free and shunning the GMOs and fast food, drinking only bottled water instead of tap water or discarding the artificial sweeteners – and don’t forget the periodic detox.  These are the so-called secrets we hear about daily, the warnings we hear about on the news, fears that advertisers pick up on in their promotions and food packaging.  Surely a high-profile study from Harvard with a very large sample size would be able to validate at least some of these popular beliefs about healthy lifestyles.

Actually what they came up with in 2018, they could have easily come up with in 2008 or 1998.  As a matter of fact, except for some of the wording, this was common knowledge in 1968!

Here it is, straight from the article:  “The five healthy habits were defined as not smoking; having a body mass index between 18.5 and 25; taking at least 30 minutes of moderate exercise a day, having no more than one 150ml glass of wine a day for women, or two for men; and having a diet rich in items such as fruit, vegetables and whole grains and low in red meat, saturated fats and sugar.”

Wow!  Imagine that! If we don’t smoke, keep our weight down, drink alcohol only in moderation, exercise, and eat healthy foods, we have a better chance of living longer, even 10 years longer.  Notice that the recommended foods were available 50 years ago, and they made no mention of the fad foods, special fruits (acai berries), super-foods (beet juice), or ancient Chinese secrets with a new one coming into vogue every year like the colors in a fashion magazine.  Where is the mention of nutritional supplements that the majority of Americans pop every morning or evening?

It seems Harvard spent a good deal of time and energy confirming what we knew, or should have known, all along.  No easy answers?  What a disappointment!

Another Super Food

I’m trying for a while to stay away from the topic of dietary supplements that claim to be the answer to all our health prayers, but it’s tough to do.  As I was zipping through ads on TV one night, I had to stop and back up asking, “What in the world is this?”

It was Super Beets, a powder you dissolve in water.  They call it a circulation super-food, with the “Nitric Oxide Equivalent of 3 Whole Beets in 1 Easy Scoop” and explains that, because we lose half of our nitric oxide as we get older, it helps:

• ·      Support Increased Energy & Stamina Without Added Sugar, Caffeine, or Stimulants
• ·      Promote Heart Health & Healthy Circulation
• ·      Support Healthy Blood Pressure Levels

After some graphs and scientific sounding explanations, they add that the American Heart Association (AHA) tested beet juice against water and 24 hours later subjects “drinking beetroot juice reduced their systolic pressure by 10 mm Hg! The beetroot juice in the study contained only 0.2 grams of dietary nitrate – the equivalent of a large bowl of lettuce or two beetroots.”  (Notice the AHA does not specifically cite the product in the ad.)  Then they list many personal endorsements.

We grow beets in the backyard garden every summer.  They are easy to grow as long as you use row cover to keep the rabbits out.  They are not easy to prepare and cook but taste much better than the ones from the store.  Are they really that good for me and my nitric oxide level?

I decided to do some research and quickly found several review websites for this product and most of them were negative.  The first stated, “there’s no research backing this product’s formula,” adding, “Many customers online are bummed out because they didn’t see any results.” Beets are good for you, but there is no scientific research specifically backing this product.

The next website lists reviews of the product, many of which are not complimentary, e.g., one customer saying how, “it tastes awful and there has been no substantial change in her energy levels.”  Other reviews fail to verify the claims of improved stamina, heart health or blood pressure.  The powder doesn’t mix well, clumps up in the container and is expensive.

Yet another site has the following: “Superbeets supplement does not work towards its claims. It does not improve energy levels nor enhance muscle building process. There are many side effects observed by customers who have used it.”  This is a summary from a site that seems otherwise favorable to dietary supplements.

Another conclusion from a review website:  “beets contain high levels of nitrates, as do other foods like arugula and iceberg lettuce, spinach, celery, and more.”  But “there simply isn’t enough clinical evidence to say with any certainty that food-based nitrates can improve exercise performance, boost energy, or maintain stamina—including SuperBeets.”  And each serving “contains about one-third of your daily recommended intake of added sugar.”

The conclusion was pretty much unanimous.  If you want a supplement with no scientific backing (many people do this all the time), that other customers gave overwhelmingly negative reviews to (tastes bad and doesn’t work), that doesn’t seem to deliver on the three main benefits it promotes, that contains a lot of sugar, that is expensive and has numerous possible side effects (upset stomach, gas, bloating, nausea, and cramping), this is the one for you.  Otherwise, maybe not.

As in so many other cases, enough people must take them at their word and buy the product to allow them to produce and distribute it, to produce and run the TV ads, to pay their employees and to make a nice profit.  What does this add to our society except a good example of another failure in critical thinking?