I have just got an e-mail from a friend who has been quite ill recently – he’s getting better because of glyco-nutrients he says….
Quote from e-mail….“If you are interested in these, do look on www.glycoscience.com. Unfortunately, it is expensive, but I consider my health my most important asset and therefore I afford the cost it takes to get myself back on a good road. It also works on a distribution network, so if you wish to try this you need to do it through me.”
Well, well, ignore the “distribution network” !!! Surprise surprise! Mmmmm..
I do understand if you are ill, you might need supplements for a while but do we need to take them as part of an "healthy eating" regime?
Check this out (from the above site)
“Two recent studies reported that our fresh fruits and vegetables are lower in certain vitamins and minerals today than they were as little as 30 years ago blah blah……Why are these nutrient losses occurring? The author of the second study speculated that numerous factors could be involved, including plant breeding practices that select for post-harvest handling qualities and cosmetic appeal (rather than nutrient content), changed storage and ripening systems, and reliance on chemical fertilizers that have contributed to soil nutrient losses…..”
I thought there was not much “evidence” for our food being less nutritious? Is there really something wrong with our food? Do we need supplements or not?
M
You're right, there isn't much good evidence. As the site your friend linked to shows (and is the first sign of a nutrition scam) if they're telling you that your deficient AND selling the product to make it all better that should set the BS meter goingOriginally Posted by Allo Allo
I thought there was not much “evidence” for our food being less nutritious? Is there really something wrong with our food? Do we need supplements or not?
M
Interestingly enough Glyco-science appears to be a front or re-seller for Mannatech . Pubmed has some papers RE:Glycoproteins but have very little to do with what's being pushed and their "Scientific papers" are only published in their in-house magazine, only available to "associates"
What most of these people are saying is (paraphrased) that because we intensively farm and use artificial\manufactured fertilisers the food isn't nutritious, which is quite frankly rubbish.
I've a suspicion that one of the reasons they believe that food is less nutritious is because of the taste, modern farmers and retailers want varieties that grow fast to a consistent shape and store well. Taste is halfway down the list of desirable characteristics.
Well I haven't read the link yet but my first thought is that whilst it's highly doubtful that fresh fruit and veg in 2007 is less nutritious than it was in 1977 the typical diet may inlcude far less of them these days. I'm trying to lay of the processed food at the moment and include as much fresh fruit and veg as I can. Hvaing been brought up on convenience food I'm finding the changeover quite a shock.
The idea that there might be a pill that could make a diet of ready meals and takeaways as nutritious as home cooked meals is rather appealling. I suspect that this too good to be true market is where they actually make their sales. A low effort sop to healthy living? Yes please?
Also the journal of Glycoscience & Nutrition is not a real journal according to PubMed. People citing articles in scientific sounding non-journals is another red flag for this being nonsense.
I looked up the source from one of the 'studies' (see below). Its just a short news item on a web site, which is available here. The site, CTV.ca appears to be a Canadian TV/radio company.
Anyway, there is some commentary on the figures in a companion article on the CTV.ca site by L. A. Piche, PhD RD, University of Western Ont [sic], see here.
The article on www.glycoscience.com From the Farm to the Kitchen Table: A Review of the Nutrient Losses in Foods by By Jane Ramberg and Bill McAnalley (available here) is downright dishonest. It states that:
"One analysis compared levels of 7 vitamins and minerals found in 25 common fruits and vegetables between 1951 and 1999. Overall, nutrient losses far exceeded nutrient gains."
In fact, L. A. Piche's commentary states that "about three quarters of them appear to have lost Calcium and Iron while the remainder either stayed the same or gained one or both minerals", but that:
"With respect to changes in the vitamin levels in the fruits and vegetables examined; 17 fruits & vegetables lost Vitamin A, 20 gained Niacin and the remainder either stayed the same or similarly lost or gained vitamins."
Pitche quite correctly states that eating a varied diet will ensure that you get enough vitamins and minerals. More importantly, as noted above, many showed gains or no change. Ramberg and McAnalley misreprisented their source. They only listed the cases of dramatic decreases in vitamins or minerals, and failed to highlight the cases in which they increased.
Moreover, Piche provided an explanation for the apparent differences:
"a) genetic differences between current and past varieties / cultivars e.g., McIntosh vs Delicious;
b) selection of higher yielding crops;
c) differences or improvements in the lab tests used for nutrient analysis;
d) soil/region produce was grown in, Ontario vs British Columbia;
e) soil moisture conditions (irrigated or natural rainfall);
f) amount of sunlight;
g) ambient temperature (greenhouse crop);
h) stage of maturity when harvested;
i) type and amount of fertilizer used;
j) storage or shipping conditions after harvest;
k) differences in sampling method;
l) database from which values may have be drawn etc."
Most of these explanations cover the experimental design, or factors that are very specific to the plant being tested (amount of sunlight, maturity, region, moisture etc). In short, if someone had tried to replicate the study thay might have found a very different result.
This is very different from the Ramberg and McAnalley's insistence that the 'decrease' in vitamins and minerals was due to the food industry's focus upon "mass production, visual and palatability issues that influence consumer choice, and physical features that are suitable for processing." Again, Ramberg and McAnalley are guilty of cherry picking. Piche did mention some factors which may tie in with their argument (points a) b) i) and j)). But Ramberg and McAnalley ignore all the other explanations which do not support their case.
The article on www.glycoscience.com is therefore a shining example of psuedoscience. Ramberg and McAnalley fill their article with references to studies, sources etc. The article looks scientific. However, examination of just one source indicates that they have misreprisented the the figures, and how they were interpreted.
If they were serious researchers they would have taken note of Piche's interpretaton. If they disagreed with Piche then they could have stated why. In fact they just ignored any point of view contrary to their own, even if it was in a companion article to the one they cite.
On this evidence the Glycoscience people are not scientists at all.
Well, I'm no scientist either but this post is some of my "thinking" as I studied your post!
I have my own eccentric theory as to why there is an explosion of obesity…it being that fat has been cut down in our eating to such an extent that we no longer eat a natural diet – fat (animal fat, butter, cream etc) is GOOD for us – We lose weight if we eat fat – and cholesterol reduces. It's ironic that obesity increased as "low fat" mania increased. "Low fat" anything is banned in our home! (I will not enter into arguing this as I wish to remain eccentric, and thin with a low cholesterol count!)
But having done some simple math on this chart to get overall averages, I find an even more interesting aspect of fat/eating/fat retaining – another dietary “possibility….
OVERALL I don’t think this IS a good picture of our food now….
Iron down 37%
Vit A down 27.18%
Calcium down 20.74%
Riboflavin down 12.72%
Vit C up 1%
Thiamine - up 11.88%
Niacin up 58% (Niacin, when taken in large doses, blocks the breakdown of fat.)
They tested - Apples Bananas Blueberries Broccoli Carrots Cauliflower Celery Cherries Corn Cranberries Cucumbers Grapes Green peppers Lettuce Onions Oranges Peaches Peas (canned) Pears Potatoes Red pepper Spinach Squash Strawberries Tomato
If Niacin blocks the breakdown of fat – and it appears to such a heightened extent overall in our food – eating lots of fresh fruit and vegetables isn’t going to help us lose weight is it?
M
I think that a lot of the advice to eat fruit and veg is a) to ensure that people consume enough fibre and so avoid bowell and other intensinal complaints, b) to encourage them to consume adequate nutrients, and c) to encourage them to eat fresh food rather than processed.
Its only going to make you thinner if you cut down on other stuff as well.
Personally, I don't bother with low fat things either. Not through health concerns. I just object to their insipid taste.
Regarding Niacin stopping fat breaking down. Its interesting but the crucial info is first how much of it would you need to eat in order for it to have this effect, and second, is it likley that people would be able to eat enough.
For example, certain vitamins are toxic. But the only sources of such high quantities are either exotic (people have died from Vitamin A poisoning after eating Polar Bear liver) or are synthetic (such as eating too many suppliments).
It would be interesting if you could cite some info on what quantity of Niacin you need to eat in order for it to stop fat breaking down.
Personally, I think that the (above) vegetable study was very unreliable. There were so many complicating factors that its impossible to say whether or not fruit and veg in general has more or less nutrients.
My own view of obesity is that the biggest culpret is our sedentary lifestyles. I spend my days sitting in an office looking at a computer. The only thing that's going to reduce my love handles is a long session in the gym. Too bad its friday afternoon and I'm iminantly off down the pub.
I have been researching niacin and fat retention – I find conflicting information.(even on its toxicity levels). It breaks down fat – it causes fat around the liver….mmmm Mostly it seems to be used to lose weight, reduce cholesterol, improve sleep, for arthritis, aids – and every conceivable other ailment.
I have discovered delightful “mini-facts”. Did you know that ostriches need fat in their diet otherwise they store yucky yellow fat on their bodies, which ruins the visual impact of the ostrich steak on your plate? And it is really healthy to eat Bison! Eating vegetables, not fruit, helps slow down the rate of cognitive change in older adults – Oh blow. I don’t like vegetables. Quote “Vegetables, but not fruits, are also typically consumed with added fats such as salad dressings, and fats increase the absorption of vitamin E.” (The fat thing again) And I discovered there are loads of other eccentrics out there who believe “Low Fat” is a crime against humanity!
M
THE FINAL WORD ON NUTRITION
After an exhaustive review of the research literature, here's the final word on nutrition and health:
1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than we do.
2. Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than we do.
3. The Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than we do.
4. Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than we do.
5. Germans drink beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than we do.
CONCLUSION: Eat and drink what you like. It's speaking English that kills you.
http://www.grumpyoldsod.com/food.asp
M
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks