|
Is what we’re eating healing or harmful?
by
Sally Easton
—
last modified
Nov 12, 2009 01:30 PM
You think you've found just the food to keep you lean, healthy and disease free, but it seems that's only half the story! At first there wasn’t enough information about the quality and quantity of the foods we were eating. Certainly not enough research or evidence to substantiate the claims being made. Now it seems as though the pendulum has swung completely the other way and there is information by the bucket load. This information can be so conflicting in parts that it’s become harder deciding what’s good and what’s bad; what to ignore and what to take seriously.
Like eggs for example. Do you eat eggs? The yolk as well as the whites? Some throw the yolk away, worried that it’s too high in cholesterol and saturated fat both unhelpful whilst trying to maintain a tip top waistline. Some only eat the whites thinking that the protein will help make them bigger and stronger. Others say breaking an egg up into two parts affects the significant vitamin and mineral content that it offers. The egg is a great source of all the B vitamins, in particular vitamins B12 and B2 (riboflavin) and a useful source of folate (helpful for pregnant women or wanna be mums) It is also an excellent source of iodine, required to make the thyroid hormone, and phosphorus, required for bone health, a source of selenium, an important antioxidant and provides some zinc, important for wound healing, growth and fighting infection. So would you consider it bad for containing saturated fat or good for saving you from taking your daily multivitamin tablet?
What about apples and peaches and carrots and beans? Do you eat the skin and scoff the lot, or meticulously remove everything on the outside? The skin contains the highest portion of fibre. Fibre is reported to help control weight and guard against certain cancers – colon cancer in particular. You would therefore think that eating an apple in all its glory would be the better option. But in this day and age, agrichemicals are a massive part of the fruit and vegetable growing industry. Herbicides and pesticides are sprayed onto crops to keep weeds and insects at bay. This helps to increase crop yields and therefore more can be sold and more money can be earned. Without peeling fruit and vegetables or at the very least scrubbing them with even more chemicals, we are apparently opening up our temples to carcinogens and free-radicals both of which speed up the onset of cancer. If I were your client, what advice would you give me?
This list of food dichotomy is growing longer and longer. More recently chocolate was added; high in fat and sugar but apparently eating it releases endorphins that make you feel happy. It also contains antioxidants and is reported to help lower cholesterol. So do I eat it or not?
Tuna is low in fat and high in protein – somewhat of a super food in some fraternities. But the tinned variety can be very high in salt which can lead to high blood pressure and other cardiovascular complications. Trace elements of mercury have also been linked to tuna and other varieties of fish, resulting in the Food Standard Australia New Zealand organization having to release a statement on safe consumption. Here’s a link to their website if you’re keen to read more http://www.foodstandards.govt.nz/).
Red wine can reduce cholesterol and help to lower blood pressure, which for me suggests that I should be regularly tucking into my favourite grape. But if I over do it, I could be encouraging sclerosis of the liver. Where is the fine line? Do you chance it and enjoy it or avoid it and miss out?
And so it goes on and sifting through the food hype to find the truth could get all too time consuming, but when your clients, or your family and friends ask you questions about the best way to improve their diet, what do you say? Do you throw everything you know at them or give them the truth as you see it, hoping that you’ve interpreted it correctly? Document ActionsWho benefits from nutritional confusion?
Posted by
Daniel Speirs
at
Dec 01, 2009 08:27 PM
I'll probably sound like a conspiracy theorist but I cant help wondering if the 'scientific' research that showed that chocolate was high in antioxidants and 'may' help lower cholesterol levels and help you 'feel good' by releasing antioxidants was actually funded in some covert way by nestle or cadbury.
Watching TV last night I viewed the latest coca-cola add - lots of folks having fun in the sun and the new catch phrase associated with opeing a bottle of coke was 'open happiness'. I guess coke didnt feel the need to supply a litteral translation of 'open happiness' being 'suck down at least 10 teaspoons of added sugar and join the massess of others on the sugar rollarcoaster leading to station 'obesity and diabetes' (those others on the rollercoaster strangely looking nothing like the folks having fun in the sun drinking coke....) I haven't been to mcdonalds for a while but I assume they still have the kids 'happy meal', 'happiness' = massess of added suger and fat and an inherant message to parents that depriving kids of a 'happy meal' would be denying them in some way 'happiness'. Im not aware of mcdonalds or coca-cola suffering financially as more 'scientific' information regarding whats healthy or harmfull comes out. I'm sure they're quite happy with the masses being confused over whats healthy and whats not. Did anyone notice that as the debate over 'carbs' (are they good or bad, blah de blah) intensified the major breweries all released 'low carb' beers to 'diversify' and meet changing 'consumer demand'. None of these beers had less alcohol (where the major calories are) and as far as Im aware were still completely derived from barley and hops (and thus still 'fully carbed'). Lots of 'psuedo-nutritionists' and celebrities certainly managed to sell (and continue to do so) many new diet books and magazines based purely on the carb 'debate'. Who benefits from this? Personally I think its quite easy to tell whats healthy and whats harmfull - If you need to look at the ingredients panel on the back of a product to actually tell whats in it then its probably not very good for you. Poor consumption in the western diet isn't complex - its the biggies - high in ADDED fat and suger (The NZ MoH estimates that 25% of the average persons fat intake comes from added sources (butter, marg, mayonaisse, sauces etc) and lacking in fresh fruit and vegetables. You can make a huge difference to a persons health by helping them get rid of the unecessary additions. We're still lucky enough to live in a country where tap water is drinkable and free of calories and cost, so we actually dont need to purchase coke at all...yet more and more people do...more and more often. When your friends, family and clients ask you how to improve their diets I think the first thing you should do is actually ask them what they consume - by finding this out you can provide them with specifc relevant and factual information rather than the latest 'scientifc' drivil or hypothesis. Who benefits from nutritional confusion? certainly not the people who need to in my opinion. I think theres a massive risk of us missing the big picture when we do buy into alot of this 'scientific mumbo jumbo', and the people who look to us for clear, practical advice and direction not getting what they need. |
Login to commentTo make a comment on any of these blogs you need to login. If you are not a member, join now by clicking on the 'Join Free' button.
Membership is free and you can...
|

yummy food
The FMCG industry really has us over a barrel and to be honest by the short and curlies. They produce mass amounts of food and not until recent shifts and health initiatives by the government have they aimed at making the food they produce more relative to healthy living. We all have to face the fact that food it something we must consume so for many the underlying factor is that it must taste good aswell.
This has been the aim of many over the years, if we make good tasting food how can anyone turn it down. Here lies the problem who knows best? We have every tom, dick and harry coming from all directions telling us this isn't good for you, this is, dont touch this and so on. Just walk into the supermarket and look at the size of it, how many different foods do you reckon are in that place? what proportion of those foods are good for us and what portion should be burried at the bottom of the tip.
The dire reality is that consumers dont have time to sit down work out the exact benefits and downfalls of certain products. A favourite slogan of past in the food library if you will is the '99% fat free' whilst this is true other ingredients have to take place of the missing fat content. If we subsititute eating one food over another what are we missing out on?
The answer is simply, let the corporates suffer and lets all go back to being self-sufficient. They survived in the past and to be fair obesity has only developed in the last couple of decades. Sounds sooo easy but it's never going to happen we all enjoy our food more than we should.
The only real solution is that we need to eat wise, cautiously and moderately instead of overindulging in bad foods. You can nver eat 'perfect' but we can eat well which is a darn site better than eating rubbish.
Any volunteers for changing the world?