NutritionEd:

Since starting my career as a Dietitian I have frequently been asked what I think about artificial sweeteners. Most often the questions are specific to Aspartame. “It it safe?”, “Does it cause brain cancer?”, “How do you know it’s safe?”

To answer these questions I would always relate to the client that Aspartame is one of the most studied food additives on the planet and there is a large body of evidence indicating it is safe for human consumption.

Recently, I was really grilled by a client who was adamant that Aspartame was the devil incarnate and it was a conspiracy by industry and the government to mask the true “dangers” of Aspartame. While this diatribe did not make me doubt my previous assertions that the sweetener is safe I still felt compelled to ensure that what I am counselling is well defendable based on the evidence available.

As mentioned, Aspartame is VERY well researched. Not surprisingly, then, a quick literature search provided a plethora of studies and editorials on the subject. One of the most comprehensive and definitive of these articles was a paper published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology in 2002 titled Aspartame: Review of Safety. This paper systematically reviews numerous studies on Asparatme and unequivocally concludes that Aspartame is safe for its intended use. That phrase “intended use” is interesting. Not sure what else people would be doing with it besides using it for a sweetener. Certainly “intended use” would include it’s addition to pop and cereals etc. Ergo, it stands to reason that this method of consumption is safe based on the studies performed.

That being said, Aspartame definitely isn’t for everyone. Just like most anything on the planet there are certain people with a very real sensitivity to Aspartame and they are wise to avoid it.

Personally, I find the taste of Aspartame (and all artificial sweeteners for that matter) less than appealing. But if it doesn’t bother you or if using it in place of sugar is beneficial (eg: for Diabetes Management) I see no cause for concern.

Over the years I’ve come across some people who feel milk and milk products have no place in our diet. Their argument seems logical in some ways. No other animal on earth (that I’m aware of) continues to drink milk, from any species, beyond infancy. Sure a surrogate hippo was in the news showing it breast feeding some piglets. But milk beyond infancy? We seem to be the only ones. All other animals get weaned and move on. If no other animal continues to drink milk beyond this time then why should we? Isn’t it unnatural? Abhorrent?

Well, on the flip side, no other animal has managed to walk on the moon either. Is that unnatural? And if you think so, who is to say you are right? Who is to say others are wrong? Fundamentally the questions becomes ‘should’ we embark on such fantastic endeavours? To me, that means one should objectively look at the question, its surroundings, the motives for the question, and the reasoning for or against it.

So along this vein of inquiry, ‘should’ we drink milk? Why or why not? If you dismiss, as I do, the answer, “Because our Palaeolithic forefathers didn’t drink milk” then the resulting assessment and ‘answer’ becomes rather obvious to me. Milk, and it’s associated products, offer a plethora of compounds and constituents which confer significant benefit to us. There can be no doubt that humans inherently require certain nutrients in order to survive. Water, high biological value protein, highly bioavailable minerals, essential vitamins, trace elements,… etc. Well, that’s basically the ingredient list of milk. If these fundamentally necessary nutrients are not only present but abundant in milk…. then why NOT take advantage of it? Is there harm in doing so? Are there other constituents that may negatively impact on our health?

I respect the philosophical question, “Just because we can do something does that mean we should?” As such I’m open to further arguments and reasoning which posit milk is not meant for human consumption beyond infancy. To keep the argument as basic as possible it should be implicit that “milk” be referred to as the unadulterated, unfortified, straight-from-the-cow milk. The dairy industry and the consumption of it’s products, I can well imagine, would spark a whole other debate.

Basically I like milk. I always have. And I can see no reason to avoid its consumption given the numerous and readily available benefits. If you’re curious as to what sparked my thoughts on this topic follow the link to the article below regarding blood pressure:

LINK

I had previously assumed that milk products might be good for managing blood pressure simply because of its high potassium content. I hadn’t heard of this study before and I certainly had never heard of bio-active peptides which act in a similar fashion to ACE inhibitors. That’s pretty freakin’ cool if you ask me. And I’ve always believed in the DASH diet. Now I believe in the “DASH+” diet.

Someone asked me the other day if I had heard of the Flat Belly Diet; a new diet book put out by the editors of Prevention magazine. I hadn’t heard of it before but could guess just from the title that it was likely another wanna-be fad diet. The person who asked me, of course, had a significant pot belly and so at least he has the motive to buy the book! I gave my usual spiel about how there is no strong research indicating that weight loss can be targeted and certainly not by following a “Flat Belly Diet”. I think I should have moderated the scorn in my voice because the person asking got a little defensive. But really, a diet whose ultimate design is to magically target belly fat? How do people fall for these things? Weight loss is weight loss. If you are going to lose weight, and a great proportion of that weight is around you abdomen, then it stands to reason that any weight loss is going to come from the largest source. It’s all about proportions people!

Anyway, I looked it up today and it appears to be a fairly adequate diet. Not super restrictive or specialized (ie: it’s not high-pro / low carb). It’s basically the Canada’s Food Guide in my opinion with attention to portion sizes, healthy fats, increased fruit and vegetables, and balancing the food groups (though their sample meal plan seems lacking in dairy). Altogether it appears to create a caloric deficit; which of course is the ONLY way you can lose weight.

In summary it appears to be just another company putting a spin on common sense in order to make money. The Canada’s Food Guide is free, people. FREE! “But Ed, this comes in the form of a book, not a pamphlet!” Well, if you want to cart around a book instead of an easy to carry pamphlet go for it (I’d like to see you put the book on the fridge with a magnet). “But this has a user friendly website with tools to help coordinate and track weight loss!” Hey, that sounds great! Good thing the Canada’s Food Guide has a helpful website too….

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/food-guide-aliment/index-eng.php

Man, so many things I want to write about these days and yet so little time. New job, weddings to help plan, condo to buy, shoulder to separate (mine, very very ouch). It’s been a crazy few months! Definitely need to change that and these are some of the topics I’ve been thinking about:

• Health Check program – boon to informed purchasing or only a marketing platform?
• Saline injection into meat – hidden source of sodium, is it really necessary?
• Vaccenic acid – a healthy, natural, trans fat?
• Nutela – ooooh how I want to rant about the commercials for this crap…

My opinions on these topics to follow soon!

It’s been a Natural Health sweetener for years yet usually only found at health food stores. Now, Stevia is coming to the masses (in the US at least) as big brands like Coka-Cola and PepsiCo release their versions to the world; with all their distribution and brand power behind it.

I always find it interesting when products such as this, which have had relatively low consumption rates in the past due to their niche marketing, are suddenly distributed by large multinational corporations thereby significantly increasing the consumption pattern. It effectively results in a huge societal safety experiment where unforseen/untested properties may come to light. Sure, Stevia (and its components) have gone through some clinical safety research, albeti much of it provided by the distributing companies themselves. Indeed some research suggests a concern for possible DNA damage caused by one of the chemical extracts.  And DNA damage is often linked to risk of Cancer. With the potential for exponential consumption of Stevia if its marketing is successful, only time will tell its true colours. For society is replete with examples of “safe” products whose dangers only manifest themselves when consumed on a societal scale.

Sidenote: I wonder what happened to Tagatose? Another natural sweetener that was big in the media a few years ago. I’ll have to check into it!

In response to a recent comment on one of my posts regarding Salmon I thought it would be helpful to post this link out there which highlights other, less common, choices for fish. It details several varieties of fish (along with their common monikers) that are purported to be more healthy when eaten and more environmentally friendly when fished. Something I am definitely going to try out is Arctic Char. This was a fish that was sometimes provided as the Special Meal of the day at the Pepper Mill restaurant in Canmore; where I worked for many years and was an instrumental factor in my future interest in cooking. The dish always received rave reviews yet I still haven’t tried it myself. Time to change that!

Check out Safe and Lesser-Known Fish Choices for the details.

I found a very interesting article the other day in the Globe and Mail regarding satiety. It is well established now that protein in food provides more satiation during eating than the other macronutrients (CHO and FAT). What is interesting about this article is that researchers found a certain type of fat, oleic acic, appears to also have a satiating effect.

In a study involving lab mice, the researchers found that when oleic acid reaches the small intestine it is converted into a hormone called oleoylethanolamide, or OEA. This hormone, in turn, sends hunger-dampening signals to the brain. That means you can go longer without eating.

I find this very interesting as I had learned in school that Fat, overall, was low on the satiety totem pole. (that sensation of feeling “full” after consuming a fatty meal is likely the protein rather than the fat… or simply nausea.)

The possibility that certain fats are more satiating than others shouldn’t be surprising I suppose. Though the mechansim is signicantly different, carbs also have varying degrees of satiety.  ie: high fiber = full faster… hopefully everyone knows that by now!

So, could the dawn of the next food combining “craze” soon be upon us? Do you think the food industry will jump on research like this and, before you know it, we’ll be offered bizarre foods like Extra Virgin Olive Oil Protein Bars? Hmmmm, could be tasty.

Click here for the the Globe article or here for the paper’s abstract.

Every time I visit my mom’s house for dinner we inevitably come around to the topic of salt. The infamous NaCl molecule has been a point of contention between myself and, well, most of my family for as long as I’ve been involved in the kitchen (since I was about 14).

My position is that while salt is necessary for many aspects of successful cooking (both for chemical as well as gustatory reasons) it can also be used over zealously and without regard to accepted nutrition practice. (see my post “Sodium in our society” for information on that)

My mom’s position, on the other hand, is a little more… liberal… shall we say. She is of the belief that salt should be added to pretty much any home cooked meal as long as it is used in the preparation phase only. She adheres to the axiom that you require less salt to reach a desired flavour if you add it during cooking as opposed to at the table; something I totally agree with. However, what she and many people don’t seem to understand is that certain situations require no salt AT ALL in order to reach a desired flavour.

For example, steamed vegetables. The other day my wife and I were over for a delicious Roasted Ham dinner and we made steamed broccoli as an accompaniment. I surreptitiously placed myself in charge of this task as I hoped to have it ready before my mom could intervene with the salt shaker. Sadly, I was naïve in this endeavor and we proceeded to, yet again, “discuss” the use of salt. My argument that the broccoli would taste superior if we left it as nature intended once again fell on deaf ears and she, being the matriarch, summarily tossed in a few dashes of salt. </sigh> I tried.

I suppose I’ve been on this crusade against salt ever since my father suffered a heart attack in the 80s. Speaking from first hand experience it is quite a traumatic experience for a young boy to see his father lying in a hospital bed with a dizzying array of beeping and flashing equipment surrounding him. I’ll always remember the nutrition advice given for such cases back then; cut down on salt and cholesterol. Although the latter may not be the heart killer we were all led to believe, the recommendation to cut salt has stood the test of time… and numerous subsequent studies. Indeed, just the other day the World Heart Federation was in the news stipulating that millions of lives all over the world could be saved if people simply cut ½ a teaspoon of salt each day from their diet. Hmmm, ½ a teaspoon… sounds about as much as my mom put in that broccoli…

Over the last few years I have (thankfully) acquired a healthy appetite for salmon. Whether it be broiled in the oven or wrapped in foil and BBQ’d (my favorite) I am discovering a plethora of ways to enjoy this fatty salt water fish. And why not? It’s chalk full of omega 3s, Vitamin D, protein, PCBs, and….wait PCBs?? What? Doesn’t Health Canada recommend eating fish at least twice a week yet it can also be harmful? I think some clarification is in order!

Sadly, like many mainstays on the market today, we encounter the increasingly popular phrase “Risk vs. Benefit”. In regards to fish (and for this post specifically salmon) there are both risks and benefits associated with salmon consumption. Thankfully, for the majority of us, the benefits to your health twice a week outweigh any risks.

Benefits

Through the power of it’s high omega 3 and vitamin D content, coupled with its profile of other heart healthy fats and protein content, eating fish such as salmon has been shown to reduce the risk of:

• Heart disease & Stroke
• Some cancers
• Alzheimer’s
• Diabetes
• Depression

However, it leaves one a little unnerved to wonder if you’ll be part of the minority who, statistically, will suffer the consequences of contaminated fish.

Risks¹

Contamination of salmon with chemicals such as PCBs or dioxins can increase your risk of:

• Cancer (such as non-hodgkin’s lymphoma)
• Reproductive system abnormalities
• Behavioural and developmental deficits (specifically for a growing fetus and for children)
• Systemic affects (such as liver disease and diabetes)

Certainly for some populations there is reason for more concern than for others. For example a middle aged person who has a predisposition to heart disease (such as a family history or lifestyle), or who has already had a heart attack, would benefit immensely from a diet rich in fish such as salmon. However, a developing child or a young person with few risk factors for such a disease may want to take steps to mitigate any potential harm from eating contaminated fish. This is because of the nature of chemicals such as PCBs (aka polychlorinated biphenyls). For one, they are fat soluble and over time can accumulate quite easily in the fatty tissues of our bodies (just as they do in fish through bioaccumulation). Secondly, they are considered “Persistent” chemicals meaning that they break down very slowly. To limit the amount of these chemicals entering and remaining in our bodies I suggest you purchase only wild salmon or canned salmon (which is apparently not farmed).

One obstacle to purchasing the appropriate type of salmon is that many providers neglect to include it’s origin on the label. A general way to get around this is to simply avoid products from countries like Norway and Scotland. Atlantic salmon is also less desireable. Instead, ensure you find pacific coast salmon such as from Alaska or California.

In summary, eating fish such as salmon generally outweighs any risks. With a little care for exactly what you purchase it is perfectly advisable to continue eating at least 2 servings of fish a week.

A great reference you can use which I found linked off of NutritionData is the Pocket Seafood Selector. This little resource can help you identify not only which salmon varieties are safer it also lists numerous other type of fish which are to be sought after or plain avoided.

References

1-http://www.epa.gov/ost/fish/

2-”Fish Intake, Contaminants, and Human Health: Evaluating the Risks and the Benefits,” JAMA, October 18, 2006–Vol. 296, No. 15

3-”Wild versus farmed salmon, The pros and cons : http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/35370.php

One of the things I’m really loving about being a Dietitian is that it’s a profession. I love being a part of something which takes itself seriously, a career that has responsibility, integrity, and progression. One aspect of the nutrition profession is being part of the Dietitians of Canada which is an amazing way to keep up to date and informed about the nutrition situation in canada and where it’s heading.

The latest benefit of my membership came in the mail today; a letter from the Agriculture department of the government of Canada. It details a new web-based resource entitled “Seafood and Health: Sorting Fact from Fiction.” This resource is exactly inline with my motivation for creating this blog. It tries to sift through all the research out there and put forth advice which is credible, helpful, and realistic.

Seafood is certainly one of the realms of nutrition which has been receiving a lot of attention these days. The paradox of the vaunted power of Omega 3′s vs the cautionary tales of mercury and PCB contamination have left many people dizzy and confused. Indeed, the question of where the benefit/detriment threshold lies is a tough one to answer. Thankfully, this government resource steps up to the plate and does a thorough job of providing the answer.