I had the rare opportunity to personally ask T Colin Campbell, author of The China Study, if any of the studies on animal protien had been conducted using a animal protein source that was not casein (dairy). The conversation went a little like this (from memory, not exact quotes):
Me: Is there research showing cancer rates using a non-dairy animal protein?
Campbell: Yes, there are studies that show that protein from vegetable sources do not promote cancers
Me: I'm sorry, the question was are there any studies from non-dairy animal protien sources?
Campbell: Casien is representative of all animal protiens. (short answer, then moved on to next question)
This left me to believe that there were no studies conducted on non-dairy animal protien.
Perhaps Dr Campbell doesn't consider fish to be an animal, since he actually conducted a study in 1985, comparing fish proetein to animal protien.
His findings:
This study provides evidence that fish oils, rich in omega 3 fatty acids, may have potential as inhibitory agents in cancer development.
The gist of the study results:
Casein (dairy protein) + Corn Oil = Cancer
Fish Protein + Corn Oil = Cancer
Fish Protein + Fish Oil = Significant decrease in development of cancer
Does anyone else see a trend here?
Sunday, March 27, 2011
In Search of Science -
How can you site studies and sources that doesn't acctually support the claim you are making?
It's been a while since my last post for 2 reasons.
Today, as I prepare to make the amazing Raise the Roof Sweet Potato Lasagna, I went to the Engine 2 website to get the details on the recipe. While skimming through the site I decided to follow his link to "About the Science", which led to a list of links where I could pick a health topic to explore. I chose to read up on cancer, since that seems to be the most controversial between the vegans and meat eaters.
Once in the post I followed an external link titled "Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk". This link directed me to the website of the Cancer Project. On the site is a lengthy article referencing studies which support a reduction in meat as means to preventing cancer. The article sites 39 references. 39! Wow, it must be right, right?
One of the first statements in the article "Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters". 40% is tremendous - if these large studies are right then why aren't more people adopting this diet? This one sentence references 3 sources. So, let's look at the source -
Source One : Debunked!
Source Two - Debunked!
I feel that I have been lied to. I've been had! And by a nonprofit organization committed to preventing cancer. I am in moral conflict - how can I be so upset at an organization with such good intentions?!
We must go to the source - and know that just because a person has an M.D. at the end of their name does not mean that they automatically earn our trust. Most frustrating in all of this is that I want to believe that a vegetarian diet will reduce my odds of developing cancer. But when I have been given false information it creates a cloud of distrust on all information coming from this group.
Does ANYONE out there have a study that supports that completely eliminating all animal meat from the diet will improve health? Anyone . . . just need one study that is not using casein(dairy) as the protein source.
Anyone . . . . . .
It's been a while since my last post for 2 reasons.
- I've been on the road this last week and was challenged with setting time to post.
- I've been seeking sources for information to help determine the optimal diet, but finding that the science does not actually support the claims being made by health professionals.
Today, as I prepare to make the amazing Raise the Roof Sweet Potato Lasagna, I went to the Engine 2 website to get the details on the recipe. While skimming through the site I decided to follow his link to "About the Science", which led to a list of links where I could pick a health topic to explore. I chose to read up on cancer, since that seems to be the most controversial between the vegans and meat eaters.
Once in the post I followed an external link titled "Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk". This link directed me to the website of the Cancer Project. On the site is a lengthy article referencing studies which support a reduction in meat as means to preventing cancer. The article sites 39 references. 39! Wow, it must be right, right?
One of the first statements in the article "Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat eaters". 40% is tremendous - if these large studies are right then why aren't more people adopting this diet? This one sentence references 3 sources. So, let's look at the source -
Source One : Debunked!
- The first was a 1994 study by the Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The study concluded that "These data do not justify advice to exclude meat from the diet since there are several attributes of a vegetarian diet apart from not eating meat which might reduce the risk"
Source Two - Debunked!
- The second was a German study that was first published in 1992 in Epidemiology in which a cohort study of 1,904 vegetarians and persons leading a health-conscious life style in Germany were followed for 11 years. 5 years into the authors of the study felt that "healthy participant effect, higher socioeconomic level, and the greater health consciousness . . may have explained most of the observed decreased mortality" and at the end of the study concluded that "nondietary factors, such as virtual absence of smoking and lower BMI may have also contributed to the lower mortality of the study participants". Basically - this study did not conclude that meat consumption was the reason for cancer deaths.
- Furthermore, additional research completed based on this study conclude that vegetarians may have lower mortality from ischemic heart disease than nonvegetarians, but no associations of a vegetarian diet with other major causes of death were established.
- The third reference comes from a study that was a follow up the the previous article. In the 1993 study "Dietary and lifestyle determinants of mortality among German vegetarians" researchers a the Division of Epidemiology at the German Cancer Research Centre, followed up on the 11 year study. They concluded that "a lower risk of death among moderate vegetarians suggests that sound nutritional planning may be more important than absolute avoidance of meat".
I feel that I have been lied to. I've been had! And by a nonprofit organization committed to preventing cancer. I am in moral conflict - how can I be so upset at an organization with such good intentions?!
We must go to the source - and know that just because a person has an M.D. at the end of their name does not mean that they automatically earn our trust. Most frustrating in all of this is that I want to believe that a vegetarian diet will reduce my odds of developing cancer. But when I have been given false information it creates a cloud of distrust on all information coming from this group.
Does ANYONE out there have a study that supports that completely eliminating all animal meat from the diet will improve health? Anyone . . . just need one study that is not using casein(dairy) as the protein source.
Anyone . . . . . .
Monday, March 21, 2011
Striking the balance between Calorie Density and Nutrient Density
Carbohydrates from calorie dense and nutrient poor sources (think white flour and white sugar) have been linked to an increase in chronic kidney disease.
Shocking . . . we know that white sugar and white flour is detrimental to health, it's nice to see studies supporting this. But I am still on the fence about nuts and seeds. I love having them as a part of my diet, and have not seen adverse health problems from including them in the diet, but my recent goal of 20% of calories from fat means cutting back on these little gems.
When it comes to PUFAs (polyunsaturated fatty acids) one study suggests that nuts can reduce rates of inflamatory disease mortality. Nuts are very high on calorie density, but also quite high in Nutrient Density.
In fact, on average nuts and seeds out-perform whole grains in regards to nutrient density. This chart comes from the Eat Right America program and is listed on wholefoodsmarket.com
Taking an average ANDI score for the top 10 foods for both categories I end up with Nuts and Seeds with an average of 48 out-performing the top 10 grains that average out to 31.6. So why am I consuming so many grains while trying to avoid the fats in nuts and seeds?
Now don't confuse this questioning, I am not reverting on my ban on oil (which, by the way, has a nutrient density score of 9 for olive oil). I can appreciate that the calorie density for quinoa is lower than the calorie density for cashew, and lowering calorie density is good for someone trying to control their weight - but veggies and fruit have a lower calorie density than grains, so why even bother with the grains?
There are several different Nutrient Density charts out there. These come from Dr. Fuhrman and his Eat Right America program. ANDI stands for Aggregated Nutrient Density Index. For the calculation Dr. Fuhrman follows H=N/C, where H stands for Health, N for nutrients, and C for Calories.
So, what nutrients are being calculated?
We need not look farther than nature to find the foods that we are designed to eat. The ANDI score is a great start - but it only scratches the surface. And it casts doubt on how much grain we should be consuming. There is more to appreciate in this beautiful bounty from the land and sea. To blanket everything in simple terms of Carbohydrates, Proteins, and Fats not only is damaging to our health, but prevents us from appreciating the complexity and nourishment that comes from a peach rather than a cookie.
Shocking . . . we know that white sugar and white flour is detrimental to health, it's nice to see studies supporting this. But I am still on the fence about nuts and seeds. I love having them as a part of my diet, and have not seen adverse health problems from including them in the diet, but my recent goal of 20% of calories from fat means cutting back on these little gems.
When it comes to PUFAs (polyunsaturated fatty acids) one study suggests that nuts can reduce rates of inflamatory disease mortality. Nuts are very high on calorie density, but also quite high in Nutrient Density.
In fact, on average nuts and seeds out-perform whole grains in regards to nutrient density. This chart comes from the Eat Right America program and is listed on wholefoodsmarket.com
Taking an average ANDI score for the top 10 foods for both categories I end up with Nuts and Seeds with an average of 48 out-performing the top 10 grains that average out to 31.6. So why am I consuming so many grains while trying to avoid the fats in nuts and seeds?
Now don't confuse this questioning, I am not reverting on my ban on oil (which, by the way, has a nutrient density score of 9 for olive oil). I can appreciate that the calorie density for quinoa is lower than the calorie density for cashew, and lowering calorie density is good for someone trying to control their weight - but veggies and fruit have a lower calorie density than grains, so why even bother with the grains?
There are several different Nutrient Density charts out there. These come from Dr. Fuhrman and his Eat Right America program. ANDI stands for Aggregated Nutrient Density Index. For the calculation Dr. Fuhrman follows H=N/C, where H stands for Health, N for nutrients, and C for Calories.
So, what nutrients are being calculated?
- Calcium, Carotenoids: Beta Carotene, Alpha Carotene, Lutein & Zeaxanthin, Lycopene, Fiber, Folate, Glucosinolates, Iron, Magnesium, Niacin, Selenium, Vitamin B1 (Thiamin) Vitamin B2 (Riboflavin), Vitamin B6, Vitamin B12, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Zinc, plus ORAC score X 2 (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity is a method of measuring the antioxidant or radical scavenging capacity of foods).
We need not look farther than nature to find the foods that we are designed to eat. The ANDI score is a great start - but it only scratches the surface. And it casts doubt on how much grain we should be consuming. There is more to appreciate in this beautiful bounty from the land and sea. To blanket everything in simple terms of Carbohydrates, Proteins, and Fats not only is damaging to our health, but prevents us from appreciating the complexity and nourishment that comes from a peach rather than a cookie.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Confession Time - this might not be the optimal diet for me
Yes, I feel great on the vegan diet - for approximately 23 hours out of the day. I sleep better, I have kicked the caffeine habit, I generally have more energy. There is just one difference that I am less than thrilled about, and that is my performance in the gym.
Strength is good - I am maintaining a strong back squat and press. Endurance is not a problem, I find that I run just as fast for a mile as I did when I was on the Paleo diet. The problem is intensity. Through several workouts of sprints or met-con Crossfit workouts I find myself in a state of extreme discomfort.
I know what my CF friends are thinking - doesn't it always hurt a little (and isn't that the point)? Yes, but this is different. In the high intensity metabolic conditioning workouts I find myself losing strength and unable to recover during the short breaks in the WOD. And I am starting to wonder - am I getting enough protein or fat?
We've discussed fat, and the goal has been to reduce fat intake levels to 20- 25% of calories consumed. I won't go into further detail about fat consumption now as that has been covered in earlier posts.
During the Engine 2 Immersion program, Dr. Colin Campbell threw out a number that was surprising - human breast milk contains approximately 7% of calories from protein. That's right, only 7%. He implied that humans at their greatest time of growth only require 5-10% of calories from protein, and therefore as adults there is no reason to go above this number. I was surprised and thought that I must be consuming too much protein.
But then I began thinking. . . Something just doesn't add up here. If we are to aim for a diet in which 20% of our calories comes from fat, and less than 10% comes from protein, then that means 70% of calories should come from carbohydrates.
But - if we are to apply the mother's milk guidelines to protein, then why wouldn't we apply it to other macro-nutrients (carbs and fat) as well? The average macro-nutrient break down for human breast milk is as follows:
It begs the question - do I need to do met-con workouts? The answer for me is unequivocally - yes. No other activity, hobby, or sport in my life has yielded the results I get from Crossfit. It is more than strength and fitness, it is clarity of mind, mental well being, confidence. It is my social network, my second family, and all in all I am better at life because of it.
So if this diet results in a decrease in desire to continue Crossfit, then I need to modify the diet. Somewhere between the two macro-nutrient breakouts above is the answer. But the answer will not be found by focusing on the carbs, fats, and proteins. The answer will be found in continuing to seek out a "whole foods", plant based, diet that is consumed as nature intended, and by watching the nutrient breakout as I try new diets (rather than letting the breakout define the diet)
Final blood results on the Plant Strong vegan diet are not complete yet, and I will hold off on any modifications to this diet until the results are in.
My goal is simple - to live a long life and to be strong enough and healthy enough to enjoy every opportunity this wonderful world has to offer. Live long, live strong. (And never let one objective prevent the other).
Strength is good - I am maintaining a strong back squat and press. Endurance is not a problem, I find that I run just as fast for a mile as I did when I was on the Paleo diet. The problem is intensity. Through several workouts of sprints or met-con Crossfit workouts I find myself in a state of extreme discomfort.
I know what my CF friends are thinking - doesn't it always hurt a little (and isn't that the point)? Yes, but this is different. In the high intensity metabolic conditioning workouts I find myself losing strength and unable to recover during the short breaks in the WOD. And I am starting to wonder - am I getting enough protein or fat?
We've discussed fat, and the goal has been to reduce fat intake levels to 20- 25% of calories consumed. I won't go into further detail about fat consumption now as that has been covered in earlier posts.
During the Engine 2 Immersion program, Dr. Colin Campbell threw out a number that was surprising - human breast milk contains approximately 7% of calories from protein. That's right, only 7%. He implied that humans at their greatest time of growth only require 5-10% of calories from protein, and therefore as adults there is no reason to go above this number. I was surprised and thought that I must be consuming too much protein.
But then I began thinking. . . Something just doesn't add up here. If we are to aim for a diet in which 20% of our calories comes from fat, and less than 10% comes from protein, then that means 70% of calories should come from carbohydrates.
But - if we are to apply the mother's milk guidelines to protein, then why wouldn't we apply it to other macro-nutrients (carbs and fat) as well? The average macro-nutrient break down for human breast milk is as follows:
- 55% from Fat
- 7% from Protein
- 38% from Carbohydrates
- 20% fat
- 59% carbohydrate
- 11% protein
It begs the question - do I need to do met-con workouts? The answer for me is unequivocally - yes. No other activity, hobby, or sport in my life has yielded the results I get from Crossfit. It is more than strength and fitness, it is clarity of mind, mental well being, confidence. It is my social network, my second family, and all in all I am better at life because of it.
So if this diet results in a decrease in desire to continue Crossfit, then I need to modify the diet. Somewhere between the two macro-nutrient breakouts above is the answer. But the answer will not be found by focusing on the carbs, fats, and proteins. The answer will be found in continuing to seek out a "whole foods", plant based, diet that is consumed as nature intended, and by watching the nutrient breakout as I try new diets (rather than letting the breakout define the diet)
Final blood results on the Plant Strong vegan diet are not complete yet, and I will hold off on any modifications to this diet until the results are in.
My goal is simple - to live a long life and to be strong enough and healthy enough to enjoy every opportunity this wonderful world has to offer. Live long, live strong. (And never let one objective prevent the other).
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Home Sweet Home (how to clear your fridge after weeks on the road)
I've been on the road for nearly 6 weeks now, on and off with short stints at home. After a day trip to BC today I wanted nothing more than to spend the evening at home cooking and cleaning. (Seriously, you take these things for granted after a while - my two unpacked suitcases, from two separate trips, have been nagging me from the corner of my room for the past week).
Since beginning this vegan journey most of my time has been on the road. When I first returned home I was committed to cooking as much food as possible at home. This began with a trip to Whole Foods Market to stock up on a fridge full of lovely organic veggies.
Fast forward 4 weeks and I am faced with a refrigerator full of produce that is about to spoil if I do not eat it TODAY.
What to do? Make Soup!
This is a trick from my college days, a time when nothing went to waste (scrambles made from leftovers was my specialty). It's quite simple really, look through your fridge, find flavors that compliment one another, add a few spices, a little broth (if you have it) tomato paste and water, set in the slow cooker and a few hours later you have a wonderful soup that will last for days on produce that you were ready to dispose of.
Tonight I pulled together a soup of: kale, zucchini, garlic, carrots, celery, and broccoli. There are a few items I always keep on hand: black beans, tomato paste, veggie broth, seasoning, and wild rice (or any wild grain will do).
Some veg items cook slower than others and therefore require a little cooking in advance (easily done in the microwave).
The Recipe
Nothing fancy - and no measuring (a general rule I like to follow) and since this is a clear-out-the-pantry/fridge type of dish, I won't even list the ingredients, but rather the process I follow when making the dish.
Since beginning this vegan journey most of my time has been on the road. When I first returned home I was committed to cooking as much food as possible at home. This began with a trip to Whole Foods Market to stock up on a fridge full of lovely organic veggies.
Fast forward 4 weeks and I am faced with a refrigerator full of produce that is about to spoil if I do not eat it TODAY.
What to do? Make Soup!
This is a trick from my college days, a time when nothing went to waste (scrambles made from leftovers was my specialty). It's quite simple really, look through your fridge, find flavors that compliment one another, add a few spices, a little broth (if you have it) tomato paste and water, set in the slow cooker and a few hours later you have a wonderful soup that will last for days on produce that you were ready to dispose of.
Tonight I pulled together a soup of: kale, zucchini, garlic, carrots, celery, and broccoli. There are a few items I always keep on hand: black beans, tomato paste, veggie broth, seasoning, and wild rice (or any wild grain will do).
Some veg items cook slower than others and therefore require a little cooking in advance (easily done in the microwave).
The Recipe
Nothing fancy - and no measuring (a general rule I like to follow) and since this is a clear-out-the-pantry/fridge type of dish, I won't even list the ingredients, but rather the process I follow when making the dish.
- Look through the refrigerator - what must be cooked, what do you have, what do you enjoy in your soup/stew?
- Look through the pantry - what do you have that can serve as a base? A grain, a can of beans, a can of tomatoes? Pull those items out and place on your kitchen counter
- Look through your spice rack - which seasonings do you enjoy? Basil? All purpose seasoning? Smell the seasonings and spices in your spice rack while looking at the ingredients you have pulled from the fridge, which one do you think will complement the dish the ingredients you are planning to cook?
- Prep - cut all of your veggies to bite size pieces. Separate the delicate items from the hearty ones (mushrooms cook fast and are delicate, carrots are slow and require extra time in the slow cooker)
- Pre-cook Hearty Veggies - Carrots, Potatoes, and Root Veg will need additional cooking time. I am impatient and prefer to precook these in the microwave. An easy 2-3 minutes should be sufficient.
- Throw everything in the slow cooker (including no more than a cup of grain), cover with water, add seasoning.
- Let the slow cooker do all of the work and enjoy 2-4 hours later.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Too much fat in the "modern" Paleo Diet?
I hate to break it to my Crossfit friends, but reality is : Bacon is not Paleo.
Despite the great focus from the modern authors of the Paleo Diet, Robb Wolf and Loren Cordain, the reality is that many have used the diet as an excuse to pack on the fatty meats and nuts by the fist-full.
On the Paleo diet and miss your crackers? Just make it out of Almond flour! "It's Paleo!", right? I was guilty, but in my search for the optimal diet and while uncovering what it means to be a "Plant Strong" Vegan, I was surprised to learn that the Hunter-Gatherer societies only consumed approximately 20% of calories in Total Fat.
20% - That's right, 20%. By today's standards 20% is considered a "low-fat" diet, and this quite honestly has been the most challenging aspect of my new diet.
The American Journal on Clinical Nutrition article Essential Fatty Acids in Health and Chronic Disease (AP Simopoulos, 1995) is well referenced by both the Paleo and Vegan community (yes, they do agree in some cases). The article makes the strong argument that the increase in added oils is the source for the heavy imbalance of omega 6:3 ratio.
More to come on Industrial Agriculture. In the meantime the focus is on reducing the amount of added oil in my diet, a challenging but not impossible feat for this road warrior
Despite the great focus from the modern authors of the Paleo Diet, Robb Wolf and Loren Cordain, the reality is that many have used the diet as an excuse to pack on the fatty meats and nuts by the fist-full.
On the Paleo diet and miss your crackers? Just make it out of Almond flour! "It's Paleo!", right? I was guilty, but in my search for the optimal diet and while uncovering what it means to be a "Plant Strong" Vegan, I was surprised to learn that the Hunter-Gatherer societies only consumed approximately 20% of calories in Total Fat.
20% - That's right, 20%. By today's standards 20% is considered a "low-fat" diet, and this quite honestly has been the most challenging aspect of my new diet.
The American Journal on Clinical Nutrition article Essential Fatty Acids in Health and Chronic Disease (AP Simopoulos, 1995) is well referenced by both the Paleo and Vegan community (yes, they do agree in some cases). The article makes the strong argument that the increase in added oils is the source for the heavy imbalance of omega 6:3 ratio.
"Modern agriculture, with its emphasis on production, has decreased the n-3 fatty acid content in many foods: green leafy vegetables, animal meats, eggs, and even fish."
What is "Modern Agriculture"? Many in the Paleo community have pointed the the Agricultural Revolution as the point of decline in human health. I would argue that "Modern Agriculture" is actually Industrial Agriculture, which is completely different than Pre-Industrial Agriculture.
More to come on Industrial Agriculture. In the meantime the focus is on reducing the amount of added oil in my diet, a challenging but not impossible feat for this road warrior
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Middle of the road
Three weeks into the Vegan diet and everyone wants to know:
But to answer the questions:
- How do I feel?
- Is it hard to eat vegan?
- Are you hungry?
But to answer the questions:
- How do you feel?
- I feel great! In fact I am surprised by how good I feel, My energy levels are higher than they have every been. I am managing stress better than I did three weeks ago. I am sleeping better and finding that I am fully rested after about 6 hours of sleep (over the 8 hours previously). Not sure what the cause is - increased veggies, decrease oil, decrease animal protein - not ready to pin it to one area - but I do feel amazing
- Is it hard to eat vegan?
- It can be challenging when traveling, but I made it work during the last weekend trip to Des Moines (and truth be told I slipped and had a slice of cheese pizza at 1am following an awesome wedding reception - the waitress told me it was vegan, at least I think she did). I am learning to cook more and make better choices, changing habits can be difficult, but it has been fun.
- Are you hungry?
- Sometimes I am hungry, and when I am - I eat. Difference is that now there is little guilt associated to satisfying any hunger pangs during the day. But generally speaking, I am as hungry now as I was three weeks ago.
What about Fish Oil?
Surely, surely I must need to supplement my diet with Omega 3, right? After all the news and reports we receive regarding the modern diet imbalance of Omega 3:6 it is assumed that we need a diet of fish, grass fed beef, and if not then we must supplement with Omega 3.
One of the speakers at the immersion program put it perfectly - getting the diet right is like opening a safe with a combination lock, you have to get all numbers aligned - 3 out of 4 won't open the safe. That point becomes clear as we look at the issue of Omega oils. It isn't enough to just eat more fruits and vegetables, if you do not control the amount of added oil to your diet you will still face health problems.
In my last post I highlighted the issue of added oil. Added oil (olive oil, coconut oil, peanut oil, corn oil, etc) is believed to damage the epithellium, as well as contribute to caloric density (something to avoid if you are trying to lose weight). These added oils are also greatly responsible for throwing our Omega 6:3 ratios out of whack.
Take a look at the following chart (found at http://www.prognutrition.com/libraryomega3nutrition.html)
One of the speakers at the immersion program put it perfectly - getting the diet right is like opening a safe with a combination lock, you have to get all numbers aligned - 3 out of 4 won't open the safe. That point becomes clear as we look at the issue of Omega oils. It isn't enough to just eat more fruits and vegetables, if you do not control the amount of added oil to your diet you will still face health problems.
In my last post I highlighted the issue of added oil. Added oil (olive oil, coconut oil, peanut oil, corn oil, etc) is believed to damage the epithellium, as well as contribute to caloric density (something to avoid if you are trying to lose weight). These added oils are also greatly responsible for throwing our Omega 6:3 ratios out of whack.
Take a look at the following chart (found at http://www.prognutrition.com/libraryomega3nutrition.html)
- do you see what I see?
Yes, the oils that are so commonly used in recipes, added to your favorite dish, and topping those lovely greens, these oils are responsible for the rapid increase in Omega 6 to the American diet.
Basically - if you do not consume the excess oil, you will not need the added fish or flaxseed oil (PS, you cannot cook with flaxseed oil, it is unstable at high temperatures and becomes carcinogenic when heated).
Ok, ok - so know you are thinking, Beth, why can't I just eat all that yummy greasy food and add fish oil?
As much as we would like to believe that our bodies are amazing machines, capable of repairing all that we throw at them, the truth is that we have our limits. Omega 6 and Omega 3 oils require the same enzymes to break these oils down into DHA and PG. The only issue is that these enzymes prefer Omega 6, and only after the Omega 6 has been synthesized will these enzymes be freed to work on Omega 3. See the problem here? What happens when your body has exhausted the enzymes?
Better question - how can we increase the amount of enzymes in our bodies? - Eating more fruits and vegetables (is your head spinning yet)
Thanks to the website http://www.benbest.com/health/essfat.html for some serious science and a little
chemistry refresher. Recommendations to improve the balance of Omega 6 to 3 are there, but overall message is to reduce total fat. "Optimum dietary benefit from fat for most people would come from a program of reduced total fat, reduced saturated and unessential fat, and increased proportions of omega−3 (relative to omega−6) essential fats."
chemistry refresher. Recommendations to improve the balance of Omega 6 to 3 are there, but overall message is to reduce total fat. "Optimum dietary benefit from fat for most people would come from a program of reduced total fat, reduced saturated and unessential fat, and increased proportions of omega−3 (relative to omega−6) essential fats."
Am I getting enough Omega 3 in the diet? Yes, with the reduction of added oil, addition of ground flax in the diet from time to time and 1oz of walnuts (also high in Omega 3) added daily the diet, the Omega 6:3 ratio can be achieved in a Plant Strong vegan diet.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
20% Fat - Eat Less Calorie Dense Foods
I've just returned from nearly 2 weeks in Austin and preparing to settle into my new diet and routine back home in Washington.
During my trip to Costco to pick up a new rice cooker/steamer I decided to purchase a few food items while I was there. Costco has really ramped up their selection of organic and natural products, available in smaller packages. Surprisingly, after an hour of reading labels I walked out of the store with nothing more than a bag of almonds, a dozen organic apples, and my rice cooker. Why? Not because of the large quantities (after all, we are creatures of habit and I really will go through those apples in one week) but the natural and organic items they do carry are extremely high in % of calories from fat or sodium.
When it comes to packaged foods we are aiming for no more than 20% of calories from fat and a 1:1 ration on calories to mg of sodium.
Fat
I was under the understanding that 30% of calories should come from fat, 30% from protein, and 40% from carbohydrates. I was surprised to learn that this guidance from the USDA was not based recommendations or science, but rather what the USDA considered a tolerable level. A study by the World Health Organization in 1997 consulted that in order to limit incidents of obesity a maximum of 20-25% of calories should come from fat.
Why did the USDA choose to list guidance of 30%? Because they did not believe that society would accept the results (when they were currently consuming 40% of calories in the form of fat).
"The dominant policies are still those relating to cardiovascular disease developed by Geoffrey Rose and Henry Blackburn for WHO in 1984. They specified a 15–30% range in total fat intakes because the Chinese and Japanese, with negligible CHD, diabetes and obesity in the 1970s, were consuming on average 14% fat, but this was totally unrealistic for the US and Northern European populations where intakes were well over 40%. So to choose a 30% figure was radical and a response to the need to reduce saturated fat intakes by simply reducing total fat." The full report on the Epidemiology of Obesity can be found in the Journal of Internal Medicine.
What is wrong with this picture?
We have the knowledge that optimal daily fat intake is 14%-20% of total calories, the USDA recommends that 30% of calories from fat, food producers supply the population with processed foods which contain 40-70% of calories from fat, and we are all scratching our heads wondering why we have an obesity epidemic in the United States. This is insane.
Obesity
In 2006, 66% of the US population was overweight and half of those were considered obese (33% of the population). It is predicted that by 2015 75% of the population will be overweight, with 41% of total population obese.
According to the CDC, in 2008, obesity-related medical care costs were estimated to be as high as $147 billion.
Light Bulb
Regardless of which diet I settle into at the end of this experiment, one thing is incredibly clear - the improvement of health of our society (and mine) relies on 2 objectives:
During my trip to Costco to pick up a new rice cooker/steamer I decided to purchase a few food items while I was there. Costco has really ramped up their selection of organic and natural products, available in smaller packages. Surprisingly, after an hour of reading labels I walked out of the store with nothing more than a bag of almonds, a dozen organic apples, and my rice cooker. Why? Not because of the large quantities (after all, we are creatures of habit and I really will go through those apples in one week) but the natural and organic items they do carry are extremely high in % of calories from fat or sodium.
When it comes to packaged foods we are aiming for no more than 20% of calories from fat and a 1:1 ration on calories to mg of sodium.
Fat
I was under the understanding that 30% of calories should come from fat, 30% from protein, and 40% from carbohydrates. I was surprised to learn that this guidance from the USDA was not based recommendations or science, but rather what the USDA considered a tolerable level. A study by the World Health Organization in 1997 consulted that in order to limit incidents of obesity a maximum of 20-25% of calories should come from fat.
Why did the USDA choose to list guidance of 30%? Because they did not believe that society would accept the results (when they were currently consuming 40% of calories in the form of fat).
"The dominant policies are still those relating to cardiovascular disease developed by Geoffrey Rose and Henry Blackburn for WHO in 1984. They specified a 15–30% range in total fat intakes because the Chinese and Japanese, with negligible CHD, diabetes and obesity in the 1970s, were consuming on average 14% fat, but this was totally unrealistic for the US and Northern European populations where intakes were well over 40%. So to choose a 30% figure was radical and a response to the need to reduce saturated fat intakes by simply reducing total fat." The full report on the Epidemiology of Obesity can be found in the Journal of Internal Medicine.
What is wrong with this picture?
We have the knowledge that optimal daily fat intake is 14%-20% of total calories, the USDA recommends that 30% of calories from fat, food producers supply the population with processed foods which contain 40-70% of calories from fat, and we are all scratching our heads wondering why we have an obesity epidemic in the United States. This is insane.
Obesity
In 2006, 66% of the US population was overweight and half of those were considered obese (33% of the population). It is predicted that by 2015 75% of the population will be overweight, with 41% of total population obese.
According to the CDC, in 2008, obesity-related medical care costs were estimated to be as high as $147 billion.
Light Bulb
Regardless of which diet I settle into at the end of this experiment, one thing is incredibly clear - the improvement of health of our society (and mine) relies on 2 objectives:
- Increasing the consumption of nutrient dense foods
- Decreasing the consumption of calorie dense foods
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)