The truth about nutrition

Despite years millions of dollars the Government-sponsored (and industry-influenced) food guidelines are not changing food consumption patterns, as many people do not meet current dietary recommendations,¹ and fruit and vegetable consumption (which is linked to greater protection from chronic diseases) remains low.^2,3 Two in three people in Australia don’t eat the recommended intake of fruit and four in five are not consuming the recommended vegetable intake, with children consuming less fruit and vegetables today than a decade ago.⁴ A recent U.K. Food Standards Agency report found that, among adults between the ages of 19 and 64, only 13% of men and 15% of women eat the recommended five portions of fruit and vegetables every day. At the present time only 32% of Americans consume five servings of fruit and vegetables per day with only 20% and adolescents meeting this goal.⁵ Instead, our diet is being replaced with significantly increased amounts of sugar,⁶ refined carbohydrates⁷ and processed fats.

While food guidelines aim to be simplistic to reduce confusion;  this often fails. The food guidelines are too general for chronic disease prevention; if the guidelines were adjusted to be more specific, chronic disease risk could be reduced.^8,9,10

A similar problem occurs within the food pyramid, which was developed in 1992 by advertising and marketing researchers to develop an image the consumer could identify with and easily understand. The pyramid was then widely distributed and has been used as an educational tool, basis for dietary assessment, and part of policy documents. It has succeeded in creating high levels of consumer awareness and is recognised by 67% or more of American adults.¹¹ This wasn’t the first time that government and industry had made attempts to influence how Americans eat: the first U.S. guide, “Food for Young Children,” dates back to 1916. And the “four food groups” developed in the 1950s were strongly influenced by the food industry—after all, the regulators invited the food industry to help shape the guidelines. To highlight the strong influence of industry on US food guidelines, in 2011 the US Department of Agriculture, the same organisation who created the food pyramid, labeled pizza as a vegetable because it has tomato paste. Any wonder the food pyramid was so wrong.

Figure 5. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Pyramid.

Source: Chiuve and Willet 2007.¹²

The 1992 food pyramid encouraged consumers to eat a huge amount of breads, cereal products and potatoes. This could very well have resulted in a greater risk of chronic disease (including CVD, obesity and type 2 diabetes), due to the fact it lacked emphasis and detail on the recommended type of carbohydrates.^13,14 This resulted in consumer confusion^15,16 and poor eating habits.¹⁷ Food guidelines, such as the food pyramid, advocate bread consumption numerous times a day.¹⁸ Bread is a contributing factor to a higher glycaemic load, promoting chronic diseases such as obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.^19,20 Therefore bread consumption should be limited or even eliminated to promote better health. In the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating²¹ it is recommended to eat plenty of cereals (including breads, rice, pasta and noodles) but we did not evolve eating these foods.

In 2005 the food pyramid was revised into an abstract version of a pyramid called MyPyramid. This new pyramid still encouraged the consumption of grains; one of the differences was that it advised consumers to choose grains that have the word “whole” in front of the grain name. Sure it changed a little, but not enough to reflect what we should really be eating. The Harvard School of Public Health made a scathing criticism of this iteration of the food pyramid.²²

In 2011, the U.S. Department of Agriculture replaced MyPyramid with a new icon called MyPlate. The plate is divided roughly into quarters, with the largest section again being grains. Dr Andrew Weil, founder of the Arizona Centre for Integrative Medicine, wrote “there are some conceptual chips and cracks in this new dinnerware. Overall, I fear another opportunity has been lost to give Americans the best up-to-date information about what constitutes an ideal diet.”²³ Dr Weil offers as an alternative the Anti-inflammatory Food Pyramid, which promotes optimum nutrition and thus optimum health.²⁴

Another are of concern is the Recommended Daily Intakes/ Allowances (RDI/A’s) also known as the percentage of daily values on the side of your breakfast food packet depending on the country in which they are used. As nutritional research and knowledge evolves, food guidelines can become redundant if updates and revisions are not continually made. The Australian RDIs have been updated only a few times since 1954, yet the Japanese, Canadian and U.S. dietary recommendations are updated every five years to match the current scientific research.^25-28

By updating food guidelines in line with scientific research, chronic diseases can be reduced.²⁹ At the same time, not updating with current research may result in ineffective food guidelines that misinform and fail to protect the public. An example is the change in recognising the importance of omega 3 essential fatty acids for chronic disease prevention. In the 1960s it was thought that both omega 3 and omega 6 were equally important, however more recent research highlights the importance of omega 3 over omega 6³⁰ and that we are consuming far too many omega 6 oils in our diet. A food guideline that is updated regularly can make the necessary changes to promote omega 3 over omega 6; however, if updates are not made regularly, the health of consumers will suffer.

Recommended Daily Intake/Allowance (RDI/A)

Many professionals suggest that our food is o.k. because it provides the RDI. This argument has probably led people to eat poor quality food and think that’s o.k. The Recommended Dietary Intake (RDI) values were established by authorities more than 50 years ago with the aim of preventing gross nutrient deficiency diseases such as scurvy and beriberi. They provide the equivalent of the nutrient bare minimum, the lowest common denominator for health, and have no relevance at all for optimum health and the avoidance of chronic illness. Optimum health cannot be obtained by following the RDI/A. These were passable as a guideline 50 years ago but were never meant to protect us from chronic illness. Yet authorities now repeatedly refer to them as the definitive levels to achieve. They are in fact the lowest common denominator of nutrition and aiming just to achieve them is likely a major contributing factor to chronic illness in Australia.

The RDI system shows a serious lack of sensitivity toward individuals with elevated nutrient demands.³¹ It does not allow for differences in people’s nutritional needs. Various groups, including the elderly, people who experience increased physical or emotional stress, people who are of above average body weight, or pregnant women may exhibit elevated nutrient demands. The recommendations also fail to take into account geographic differences such as living in areas with nutrient-deficient soils or high levels of environmental pollution.³²

Socioeconomic factors may also affect the adequacy of RDI/A values for certain groups. For example, the U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowances (U.S. RDAs) claim to represent the daily intake levels sufficient to meet the nutritional needs of 97% to 98% of all healthy individuals in a group. However, the homeless and poor are not healthy as groups and inadequate dietary quality has been documented in these sectors of society.³³

Recommended intakes don’t take into account the interactions of nutrients or toxins—in particular, the synergy and the fact that a shortage of one nutrient may bring about inefficient use of other nutrients. While most people know of vitamin C’s antioxidant effects, very few are aware of the benefits of it consumed with other antioxidants. Extra vitamin C spares the destruction of other nutrients in the body.

Professor Bruce Ames, one of the most respected names in modern nutrition and one of the early developers of toxicological standards, suggests that we need to move beyond the RDI and that age-related diseases like heart disease, cancer and dementia may be unintended consequences of mechanisms developed during evolution to protect against short-term nutrient shortages. In what he calls the “triage theory,” he suggests that because natural selection favours short-term survival—to escape from a bear or survive a cold winter—over long-term health, short-term survival was achieved by prioritising the use of these scarce nutrients that are also necessary for less urgent, but just as important, functions including healthy ageing. The nutrients are allocated to short-term essential (urgent) tasks versus keeping you healthy in the long term and avoiding chronic illness. The triage theory proposes that modest deficiency of any vitamin or mineral could increase age-related diseases. This theory has important implications for determining the optimum intake of all vitamins and minerals, as well as major implications for preventive medicine.³⁴ Current RDAs and RDIs provide for urgent short-term requirements only and not the nutrients for important tasks and optimal health.

In his recent study of vitamin K, Professor Ames and his colleagues showed that current recommendations for vitamin K, which are based on levels to ensure adequate blood coagulation, fail to ensure long-term optimal levels of the vitamin and may accelerate bone fragility, arterial and kidney calcification, cardiovascular disease and possibly cancer. So the levels approved for the short-term do not help us to avoid chronic illness, which is the biggest burden we face in the 21^st century. In another study the same group investigating selenium, reported that the same set of age-related diseases and conditions, including cancer, heart disease, and immune dysfunction and an increase risk of diseases of aging are associated with modest selenium deficiency ³⁵. The overall conclusion of this growing body of evidence is that optimizing nutrition and metabolism will delay aging and the diseases of aging in humans ^36,37.

Perhaps easier to understand a well-known and good example of the triage system is the pH (acid/alkali levels) of the blood and mineral balance. The optimal pH of the blood is around 7.35. If the pH varies slightly from this level, as a result of eating processed foods which increase the acidity of the blood, it dramatically affects many of the 90 or so enzyme functions in the blood. These enzymes literally do all the work, repair, cleaning up, transport etc in the blood. If they slow down too much we get very sick and die quickly. To make sure this doesn’t happen the body has a few mechanisms to keep the pH in perfect balance. The main mechanism is to allocate or triage alkali minerals like magnesium and calcium from where they should be working in optimal conditions, such as in the cells and in bones, to balance the pH in the blood. While this protects our urgent health requirements it increases our long risk of chronic health conditions such as heart attack, cancer and osteoporosis as a result of the shortage of these minerals. The body allocates the nutrients for short-term survival, the “essential” functions are protected from nutrient deficiency over other “nonessential” functions  needed only for long-term health.

It is time we rethink our nutritional advice to eliminate the vested interests and to come in line with the tens of thousands of nutritional studies that have been done over the past decades. The current standards do not represent the scientific evidence that is currently available.

1.     Ball et al. 2004

2.     Ziegler 1991

3.     AIHW 2002

4.     Magarey et al. 2001

5.     Ames 2001

6.     Cook et al. 2001

7.     Jenkins et al. 2004

8.     McCullogh et al. 2000a

9.     McCullogh et al. 2000b

10.  McCullogh et al. 2000c

11.  Nestle 1998

12.  Chiuve and Willet 2007

13.  Willet 1998

14.  Weinberg 2004

15.  Cotugna et al. 1992

16.  Ferrini et al. 1994

17.  Grifford 2002

18.  Nutrition Australia 2005

19.  Davis et al. 2004

20.  Villegas et al. 2004

21.  NHMRC 2003

22.  http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/pyramid-full-story/index.html

23.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/myplate-nutrition-plate_b_871045.html

24.  http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/PAG00361/anti-inflammatory-food-pyramid.html

25.  Kris-Etherton et al. 2000

26.  Cobiac et al. 1998

27.  Bush and Kirkpatrick 2003

28.  Guthrie and Smallwood 2003

29.  Jacques and Tucker 2001

30.  Holman 1998

31.  Gopalan 1997

32.  Kirchheiner nd

33.  Wiecha et al. 1991

34.  McCann and Ames 2009

35.  McCann and Ames, 2011

36.  Ames 2010

37.  Ashutosh and Ames 2011

Junk food increases depression

In the latest study (Public Health Nutrition March 2012 15 : pp 424-432) consumers of fast food were 51% more likely to develop depression compared to those who eat little or none. Even more convincing the study found a dose-response relationship. That is, the more fast food you consume, the greater the risk of depression. The study looked at the consumption of fast food (hamburgers, sausages, pizza) and processed pastries (muffins, doughnuts, croissants) of  8,964 participants with a median follow-up of 6·2 years. In their normal conservative mode the scientists concluded that fast-food and commercial baked goods consumption may have a detrimental effect on depression risk. Not just fast food (take-aways), the study found that even eating small quantities of commercial baked goods was linked to a significantly higher chance of developing depression. In an earlier study by the same authors they found a 42% increase in the risk associated with fast food

Depression is a serious and debilitating condition that can affect anyone. It is estimated that around 35% of the population will develop mild to severe depression in their lifetime. Australian Bureau of Statistic indicate that on average one in every five females and one in eight males will experience depression during their lifetime. Moreover, there are around one million of Australian adults and 160000 adolescents who live with depression each year.

Adding to the weight of this study a large number of studies have shown that particular components of the diet such as n-3 fatty acids and B-vitamins as well certain minerals supplements, can decrease the rate of depression.

           

Many studies have shown Omega-3 fatty acids to significantly reduce depression levels. Countries where there is large fish consumption among the people tend to have a lower rate of depression than societies where fish is not a prominent staple in the diet. Western countries with a low to moderate per capita fish intake of 11-32kg had an annual prevalence of depression in the range of 3-6%.  Countries such as Japan who have a high per capita fish consumption of 68kg had a depression rate of 0.12%. The more omega-3s in your blood, the more serotonin you are likely to make and the more responsive you become to its effects. It also reduces your risk of heart attack, storke and so many other chronic illnesses.

The research consistently shows that people with either low blood levels of the B-vitamins especially folic acid are more likely to be depressed. In a study of hospitalised older people participants who received a normal hospital diet plus multivitamin and mineral supplements for six weeks found lower levels of depression regardless of the initial level of depression of the individual. The authors wrote, “Many epidemiological and case-control studies have shown associations between folate and vitamin B12 deficiency and depression. In a study of 3,500 over-65-year-olds in Chicago over an average of 7.2 years of follow-up, the researchers noted that increased intakes of vitamins from food and supplements B6 and B12 were associated with a ‘decreased likelihood of incident depression.’ For every 10-milligram increase in the intake of vitamin B6 and for every 10-microgram increase in vitamin B12, the risk of developing symptoms of depression was decreased by two percent per year.

A number of studies have found lower levels of zinc and chromium in depressed patients. In one study seven out of the ten depressed patients taking chromium showed a big improvement, versus none on the placebo. A larger study of 113 patients found that after eight weeks 65% of those on chromium had had a major improvement, compared to 33% on placebos

Unfortunately most processed foods are low in nutrients including omega 3 fatty acids, B vitamins and the minerals like zinc and chromium.

Soft drinks - hard facts

Soft drinks are a noxious cocktail of substances that play havoc with your body. They‘re highly acidic, contain artificial colours and flavourings and high levels of sugar or artificial sweeteners. Over the next 10 years you are going to read a lot more literature on the toxic effects these drinks have on our kids.

Most (if not all) soft drinks have huge amounts of sugar (such as 10 or more teaspoons per can) that creates a sugar rush into the blood, in the same way as other high GI foods. The sugar is quickly converted to body fat. If it stays in the blood, it causes some free radical damage. The general guidelines for sugar consumption for a 70-kilogram teenager are no more than 10 – 12 teaspoons of sugar a day. One average can of soft drink will exceed that amount. For younger and smaller children the amount of sugar should be substantially less.

Recent research has shown that the high acidity of soft drinks – which generally have a pH (acidity scale) of around 2.8 – is a major factor in tooth decay, literally dissolving the enamel from the teeth. Moderate drinkers had a 200 per cent increase in dental problems while heavy soft drinkers were had a 500 per cent increase in dental caries. This was solely the effect of the acid on the teeth, without even considering the impact of the sugar content.
The high phosphate content of soft drinks increases their acidity and also binds with important macro and micro minerals such as iron and zinc; so, even if you eat any nutritious food with a soft drink, you’ll lose these important minerals. This mineral leaching process is further compounded by the high acidity, which causes minerals to be drawn from the bones, as the body to works to stabilise the acidity and keep the blood acid level constant. This can lead to serious depletion of bone calcium.

The table below shows the results from one of my student’s analysis of the pH and ingredients of many common soft drinks.




Now the medical solution to this problem is to come up with a drug (which has adverse side effects) to reduce the calcium loss from the bone. My solution is to eat more vegetables and to reduce the intake of soft drinks. (For more information on soft drinks, keep an eye out for my next book, “Soft Drinks - Hard Facts”).

• Drink less soft drinks;
* Drink more water;
* A little tea is okay, but remember a strong cup of tea can contain as much caffeine as a cup of coffee. Tea is full of antioxidants, even tea with milk, but don’t make it too strong.
• Coffee is full of stimulants that trigger of the production of dopamine then adrenaline and noradrenaline. That is, it triggers a mini stress response. A little coffee is fine, but remember, it’s a stimulant and takes about six hours for half of it to be excreted from your body, so don’t have it late in the day.

Tea

A study published in February, 2004 showed that when heavy smokers drank four cups of green tea per day for four months there was a significant decrease in a urinary marker of DNA damage (Hakim 2004). Green tea might also be beneficial for those undergoing conventional treatment for cancer, although that is far from proven.

Hakim IA, Harris RB, Chow HH, Dean M, Brown S, Ali IU. Effect of a 4-month tea intervention on oxidative DNA damage among heavy smokers: role of glutathione S-transferase genotypes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13:242-9.

Wednesday 10th August 6.30pm
Whitford Church of Christ large auditorium
9 Scaphella Avenue, Mullaloo WA 6027

Entry is by Donation

Additives in our Kids

My simple rule is the more additives in a product the less food there is and we cannot expect a child to function on products missing foods and filled with synthetic toxic chemicals.

It has been proposed for many years that food additives contribute to ADD/ADHD. While this is refuted by the food additive industry, there’s growing evidence that this is the case. It’s also becoming apparent that there are biochemical explanations as to why some foods and food additives, particularly the food colours, may be contributing factors. For example, salicylates inhibit the conversion of the EFAs to the protective prostaglandins, as mentioned earlier. Many foods that contain salicylates, including tomatoes and granny smith apples, as well as aspirin and the food colours like tartrazine (102), may exacerbate ADD/ADHD.

Food additives linked with ADD/ADHD can also deplete the body of vitamins and minerals. Tartrazine decreases blood levels of zinc and increases its excretion in the urine.

Food additives to avoid are 102, 107, 104, 110, 120, 122, 123, 124, 127, 129, 132, 133, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160b, 168, 173, 250, 251, 252, 282, 320, 321, 420, 421, 621 (MSG) 622, 624, 627,631, 635, 951 (Nutrasweet®, Aspartame®).

Academic performance and behavioural issues improve significantly when children are given optimal nutrition and nutritional supplements.

Then there is the processed meats such as salami, ham and bacon. They contain loads of additives including nitrates (249, 250, 251, 252), which form a group of cancer-causing chemicals called nitrosamines. High rates of nitrosamines can be found in pies, pasties, sausage rolls, frankfurters, salami, ham and bacon. This increases the risk of colon and stomach cancer and childhood leukemia. Just a few beef frankfurters a week will increase this risk for children.

Another additive in processed meats and many other processed foods is Monosodium Glutamate (MSG), which is well known for influencing severe attacks of ADHD and eczema-like rashes. MSG (621) is often added to processed foods because it increases hunger, which of course means that more food is eaten. It is easy to see how this leads to childhood obesity and diabetes. Many processed foods have MSG added to improve the flavour without adding more food. Please, read every label of every box, bag and carton you bring home from the grocery store, before you put that food on the table—or better, before you buy it!

For more information check out
www.additivealert.com.au