Your Guide to Navigating Sugar, Celiac Disease & the Media Frenzy

camping-walkthroughs-no-6

A few days ago I was flooded with messages from family, friends, and followers, sharing a New York Times article that had shocked them all. This article detailed how the sugar industry paid scientists in the 60’s to target saturated fat as the primary factor in heart disease instead of sugar.

591735.jpgThe Sugar Association, previous known as the “Sugar Research Foundation”, paid over $50,000 to multiple researchers in order to keep the focus on saturated fat as opposed to the role of sugar in the development of heart disease.

Although every person that shared this with me expressed some level of surprise, it didn’t even elicit a heavy sigh or jaw-drop for me. This article sums up the standard of nutrition and health research in the United States for close to a century.

First there was the Seven Countries Study in the late 50’s in which one researcher set out to prove his personal belief that animal protein and fat was the cause of heart disease…with funding of $200,000 from the U.S. Public Health Service!

This “scientist” went on to cherry-pick six countries that best supported his belief, while removing 14 others that had low rates of heart disease despite diets full of saturated fat and animal products.

Later there was the China Study, where a researcher looked at the rates of cancer for the whole of China, took the daily diet of one particular area, and applied it to the whole country, claiming that the diet was the sole cause of the low cancer rates. Next, the researcher exposed rats to cancer causing toxins, fed them highly processed, inflammatory protein that their natural diets wouldn’t include, and when the cancer cells grew, claimed that all animal protein would cause the same results in humans!

Dgssi2id you know that there is such a thing as the “Gatorade Sports Science Institute”? And that nearly every recommendation regarding hydration, whether from a study or just propagation of long-standing rhetoric, comes from this “institute”?

So, we’ve got food producers paying for the studies that will affect national health guidelines, guaranteeing sales of their products.

We’ve got researchers trying to prove that their personal beliefs and diets are best for preventing disease while burying any data that disproves their hypothesis.

And we’ve got enormous leaps of faith, referred to as epidemiological studies, assuming that 1 single factor is the end-all be-all for a population of millions.

But now we are at the peak of the information age! People can now go online and look at the actual studies. We can find the fallacies and the strengths in different studies, and then that information can be spread across the globe in a matter of seconds thanks to social media.

Other countries have been testing for Celiac disease at birth for decades.

celiaci-940x625Italy is proposing a new law that could result in jail time for parents that force a vegan diet on their children (due to lack of naturally occurring essential nutrients such as EPA/DHA, B vitamins, and activated fat-soluble vitamins).

Government agencies are trying to limit prescription of opiates and benzodiazepines (even if the damage has already been done).

All this represents a shift in the paradigm of health. No longer is there one Standard American Diet.

Some people are replacing grains with veggies while others only eat “ancient” grains that have been sprouted. Some people limit protein and calories while others skip breakfast to reap the same fasting benefits. People are aware that buying pastured beef or pork from a local farmer, or buying chickens to have their own source of eggs, is a choice that not only affects their health, but the environment as a whole.

Keep one eye on the news, whether popular sources like the New York Times or digital forms found on blogs and doctor-run websites. But keep the other eye on the actual research. When an article has some super catchy title, see if there is a link to the study.

Read the methods – is it based on dozens of individuals in a perfectly controlled facility 24/7? Or does it make assumptions from a birds-eye view of millions?

Read the conclusions – does a diet of grass-fed pastured beef cause cancer? Or is the true danger a specific molecule found in highly-processed meats, that is normally consumed on a whole pizza or between two buns of sugar?

I guess what I’m saying is empower yourself!

Some of this may be complicated in the beginning, but as you read more and more, you’ll pick it up just like a second language…and remember I’m only a message away!

1095892287454413090816

The Most Nutritious Foods

As many of you know by now, I try to consume the most nutritious foods possible. However, I’ve never listed exactly what foods provide the most nutrients per serving.

Advertisements claim that certain foods are important nutritionally. Markets assign numbered scores to various products. Most of these rating systems, such as NuVal and ANDI, are inaccurate for a number of reasons.

First, they look at nutrients that are not essential for life, and conversely, overlook nutrients that are necessary for life. Second, they draw from disproved nutritional norms, such as dietary cholesterol and saturated fat being “bad”. Thirdly, they are designed by agricultural companies or individuals with a bias.

Scientists, such as Loren Cordain and Mat Lalonde, have done extensive work in the last few decades to redesign nutrient rating systems. They set aside non-essential nutrients in food and focused purely on what the body must consume from outside sources.

The body cannot produce the following:

Fatty Acids: Omega 3 and Omega 6

Amino Acids: isoleucine; leucine; lysine; methionine; phenylalanine; threonine; tryptophan; valine; histidine

Vitamins: A; Bp (choline); B1 (thiamine); B2 (riboflavin); B3 (niacin); B5 (pantothenic acid); B6; B7 (biotin); B9 (folic acid); B12; C; D; E; K

Minerals: calcium; chloride; chromium; cobalt; copper; iodide; iron; magnesium; manganese; molybdenum; nickel; phosphorus; potassium; selenium; sodium; sulfur; zinc

These nutrients were plugged into the following formula to determine nutrient density:

(sum of essential nutrients per serving) ÷ (weight per serving)

I’d like to make a few points before posting Mat’s nutrient density list.

First, the database he drew from did not have complete data for certain nutrients.

The database did not differentiate between preformed vitamins and their final form. Vitamin A, “beta-carotene”, in sweet potatoes and carrots, must be converted to “retinol”, found in egg yolks and liver. Vitamin K1, found in green leafy vegetables, requires conversion to K2, found in grass-fed dairy.

There was no way to account for bioavailability of nutrients. Most grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds contain high levels of phytates which prevent absorption of nutrients and minerals.

Finally, and most importantly, the diet, age, and lifestyle of animals were not specified. Grass-fed beef, raised on open pastures, is much healthier than corn-fed beef, raised in stalls that restrict movement. Also, mature ducks having more nutritional value than baby ducks.

Taking this unavailable data into consideration, we can assume that most animal products would move up a few spots. This is because most plants have limited amino acids and fatty acids, and the vitamins found in vegetables must be converted or activated.

Without further ado, the ranking of nutrient density averages for the food groups:

1.) Organ Meats and Oils
2.) Herbs and Spices
3.) Nuts and Seeds
4.) Cacao
5.) Fish and Seafood
6.) Pork
7.) Beef
8.) Eggs & Dairy
9.) Vegetables (raw & unprepared)
10.) Lamb, Veal, and Wild Game
11.) Poultry
12.) Legumes
13.) Processed Meat
14.) Vegetables (cooked, canned, blanched, pickled)
15.) Plant Fats and Oils
16.) Fruit
17.) Animal Skin and Feet
18.) Grains and Pseudocereals (cooked)
19.) Refined and Processed Fats and Oils
20.) Grains (canned)
21.) Processed Fruit

Many people will be surprised by how low grains appear on the list. The nutrient value of raw grains would place them in the top 5. However, our bodies cannot digest raw grains. Taking nutrient loss during cooking and expansion of grains (1/4 cup raw rice = 1 cup cooked rice) into account, their value decreases dramatically.

I was quite surprised to see herbs, spices, and cacao near the top of the list. I always considered these foods to be enjoyable additions to a healthy diet, but not the most valuable sources of nutrients.

Two final notes regarding this list:

It is not a requirement to eat the most nutritious foods all the time. Certain nutrients, such as activated vitamin A (retinol) and selenium (abundant in Brazil nuts) are actually toxic in high doses.

Second, as previously mentioned, this rating system only looks at essential nutrients. Many vegetables contain antioxidants and fiber that can improve health, even though they are non-essential for life.

I would recommend consuming foods higher on this list and keeping your meals full of vegetables.
For Mat Lalonde’s complete presentation, follow this link to YouTube.

Matheiu Lalonde has a PhD in Organic Chemistry and a postdoctoral degree in Inorganic Chemistry from Harvard. He teaches, lectures, and is the Science Safety Officer at Harvard’s Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology. I have to give him credit for the motivation behind, and information in, this post.

I hope this sets aside all confusion of what is best to eat.

Keep in mind that human-run studies can be flawed, correlations from epidemiological studies can be weak, and research can be conducted to prove a point, rather than discover the truth, but the actual make-up of foods cannot be disputed!