Today I wanted to talk about additives, we always see everyone avoiding them at all cost. What are E numbers? What do they do? Are they safe? I think hearing about the other side of additives is interesting, hope you find it interesting also.
Whatever additives you are wanting to avoid, do you know the reason why you are avoiding it? Some people avoid because they react to specific additives, this is a good reason to avoid right? Yep. Because the food with the additives may not be that nutritious? Yep.
Then there are people avoiding them because they just think they should be, because other are, because pages they follow say they should. These are the pages that will pick a product and then point out all the E numbers and then continue to scare you by how “bad” they are. In reality they are not bad in the dose that you would consume. You also get a dose of guilt, food shaming or making you feel like a bad parent. I hate this. I know these peeps mean well, but it’s not really telling you the whole story.
What is actually going on is a mixture of; thinking they are doing the right thing by you, not understanding E numbers or toxicology or anything like that. Might I add the additive webpages don’t always have it right, where do you think they get THEIR info from? They will only tell you a worst case scenario, not what happens to the average bearJ
or they just THINK they understand, or there is plain old scaremongering and exaggeration. You see this all the time, yeah…I mean when you really look at pages and are looking for it you see it more. Many people are even making lots of money telling you all the things you shouldn’t eat. People don’t always want to know all the things they shouldn’t eat they want to know, “well, what the hell CAN I eat?”
I would like to add I was one of these pages, in honesty I didn’t know better, I actually thought I was helping people, in reality I didn’t really research it at all, I looked up an additive website, presented what they said and took that as fact without context of a real life situation. That’s not to say there are not exceptions as there are people who do not tolerate some additives-this isn’t about those people. Just like with any food there is always someone who cannot have it. Doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing, it’s just a bad thing for you.
What is being presented to you is what happens at doses that will never be consuming, animals studies (not so bad) I know I sound like a broken record, but the poison is in the dose, if you are not consuming it is toxic amount then it is deemed harmless, like salt, caffeine, zinc, iron, vitamin A…water….this is what some people are not grasping the concept of.
Well, let's start with a short explanation of what E numbers are. E stands for Europe, and the E number code relates to a set of EU rules about which foods can contain them and how much you should be able to consume in a day.
The European Union legislation defines them as " any substance not normally consumed as a food in itself and not normally used as a characteristic ingredient of food, whether or not it has nutritive value, the intentional addition of which to food for a technological purpose in the manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packaging, transport or storage of such food results, or may be reasonably expected to result, in it or its by-products becoming directly or indirectly a component of such foods."
Food additives have been developed over the years to meet the needs of food production, as making foods on a large scale is a very different task to making them in the kitchen at home. Additives are needed to ensure processed food remains in a good condition throughout its journey from the factory to the shop and to the consumer at home.
Preservatives are especially important. Microbial spoilage results in high levels of waste as food is transported from the farm to the table –Without preservatives the rates of food poisoning would be much higher. Food preservation also saves money for consumers – less is wasted because it has spoiled or gone stale. If there are no preservatives in your food what method of “preservation” is there? Salting, sugar, vinegar, drying-these are all methods of preservation. Same thing with “nitrate” free ham, what is preserving it then? These foods are at a high risk for contamination. So they use celery salt because its “natural” it’s naturally full of nitrates which during the curing process form nitrites and its derivative sodium nitrite. Chemically it is the same thing weather it sodium nitrate made in a lab or naturally occurring, and you usually are paying more for “nitrate free” bacon/ham. If they used nothing your smallgoods would be a yukky grey colour and would probably put most people off. I have made my own bacon before and can confirm its colour! If your bacon/ham is not grey there are preservatives in there of some kind. Doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing, better than food poisoning.
Take for example the nitrate free bacon ($34.99kg) from “the free range butcher”
Companies starting making nitrate free small goods due to consumer demand which was based on old studies and myths.
Ingredients of their nitrate free bacon;
Fresh pork, Mineral salts (451) Sugar-Dextrose (Tapioca or Maize) Antioxidant (316)
E451 are triphosphates which are salts of sodium/potassium with phosphates. All are produced synthetically from the respective carbonates and phosphoric acid.
E316 is Sodium erythorbate which is the sodium salt of erythorbic acid, a synthetic isomer of vitamin C (but with only 1/20 of the vitamin activity).
Preservatives, antioxidants and stabilisers all play a role by keeping food in good condition until they are eaten. This reduces waste. We the consumers have partly to lay blame for the additives, we are fussy things, we want food to come from far and wide, we want food to be safe for consumption without getting sick, we want the ingredients evenly distributed, we want creamy mouth feel foods, we want our food to be an appealing color, we want ice cream ready to scoop from the freezer, we want food all year round, we want our food to stay crisp etc etc… in other words we want many things, and they delivered.
Humans have always found ways to preserve their food to stop it spoiling before it can be eaten. Many of the bacteria and moulds that grow on food can be dangerous. Salmonella, listeria and botulism are familiar forms of food poisoning caused by bacteria.
How is the safety of food additives evaluated?
EFSA assesses the safety of the food additives. The substances are evaluated based on a dossier, usually provided by an applicant (normally the producer or a potential user of the food additive). This dossier must contain the chemical identifications of the additive, its manufacturing process, methods of analyses and reaction and fate in food, the case of need, the proposed uses and toxicological data.
The toxicological data must contain information on metabolism, sub-chronic and chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity; genotoxicity, reproduction and developmental toxicity and, if required, other studies.
Based on this data, EFSA determines the level below which the intake of the substance can be considered safe – the so-called Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). At the same time, EFSA also estimates, based on the proposed uses in the different foodstuffs requested, whether this ADI can be exceeded.
In case the ADI will not be exceeded, the use of the food additive is considered safe.
What are the conditions to authorise food additives?
Thanks to strict regulation and thorough testing, food additives are safe elements of our diet. Importantly, clear labelling adds to consumers' ability to make informed choices about the food and beverages they eat and drink.
Bottom line is;
Many of us avoid additives because sometimes (not always) it’s a food that is almost not really a food anymore and it’s of little nutritional benefit. If there are additives in there, what is the purpose? As in what does this additive do? They have all been deemed as safe as stated above, very strict guidelines have to be met. (Aside from a minority group of people that make react to certain additives)
If something really does what all the alarming website/health bloggers tells you, how is it that the companies are not being sued, complaints, people getting sick, then no one would buy the product, not good for the company. It is in their best interest to make sure they use additives that are proven to be safe at the doses that are used in each specific product.
You do not need to worry about additives at all if you stick to fresh foods, generally this is meat, veg, fruit, nuts/seeds, eggs etc.
Today I want to talk about energy dense food as opposed to nutrient dense. I normally don’t talk calories here, but in this instance it will help to make sense of the energy denseness of junk foods. I am not saying don’t eat junk food either, no foods should be labelled good or bad, it is about moderation and defining what moderation actually means for you.
To me energy dense can be either junk food or food like nuts which has a high amount of calories in a small space. Nutrient dense is food with a lot of nutrition in a small amount of either space or as a calorie amount. Like broccoli has a lot of nutrition and low calorie or nuts are energy and nutrient dense as they have a lot of nutrition in a higher amount of calories. Hope that made sense!
Today I will discuss energy density in junk food and why when we think we don’t eat much we actually are eating a lot and this can and does contribute to weight gain. Junk food is also food that in eaten in-between meals not as a meal. (Generally!)
When you thinking dieting a lot of people think “ I’m going to be hungry, I won’t feel full, I won’t like the food etc… and this is why you don’t stay on your “diet” yes you lose weight, but do you keep it off?, has your mindset changed? Do you still crave that junk food?
Are you hungry like ALL THE TIME?
When you think junk food I think cakes, biscuits, lollies, chocolate bars, doughnuts, pastries, chips, soft drinks, potato chips, most of this food has a lot of calories but take up a small space you feel like you haven’t eaten much and due the high glycaemic load they are quickly digested and absorbed, (the takeaway food is a little kinder depending on what you get and are more filling usually)
There are a lot of theories of why we have gotten bigger- from gut microbiome, hormonal issues (caused by what?) genetics, chemicals and environmental attributes, GMOS, sugar, carbs, fat, lack of exercise, so it could be these things, or it might be none of them, they are mostly just theories. Or it might be we are actually eating more than what we require, eating too much or too often of the wrong things which may mean we eat more in calories than we think we do? Is it that simple?
What do you think?
Is junk food a lot of the reason why the population is getting bigger? We have access to it everywhere, it’s convenient. The big junk food companies are only keeping up with consumer demand, so obviously there is a huge demand for it, so it starts with us. Supply and demand, we buy less they make less, this may mean they go out of business, they make what the consumers do want or the prices go up!
So let’s take 100g of potato chips, if you take one of the big 200g packets of chips and have half that’s your 100g chips, and it’s very easy to eat this amount. Why? The right amount of crunch, salt and fat, enough to make you keep eating it for that hedonistic pleasure. How hard is it to stop at a small handful? Pretty hard! People get paid big money at these companies to come up with just the right amount of what we like, enough to hit our sweet spot, after all they are in business to make money. They know exactly what they are doing.
Firstly I will start with the average person (so some people more or less than this amount) requires approx. 8700kj (kilojoules) or roughly 2000 calories
So in that 100g chips you have 2200kj- this is ¼ of your daily intake and this isn’t a meal it’s just a snack!
A 50g normal bag of chips has 1100kj and the little tiny snack bags (19g) has 420kj. Can you see how this is a small amount of food, not that satisfying but has a lot of calories?
Take 4 timtams, another easy thing to have 4 of, yeah? So 4 of these bad boys weighs only 74g yet has 1600kj! This is the amount in a breakfast or lunch! This is nearly 1/5 of your daily intake in only 4 timtams.
What about a crispy crème doughnut? Well these are like eating clouds! lol
1 plain glazed crispy crème is just 57g and has 980kj….well easy to have 2 of them cause they taste good… so let say 1960kj- so just over ¼ of your daily intake.
1x 53g mars bar has 1020kj
I will add in a small big mac meal from Macca’s because…just because!
1 big mac, small fries, small coke and 1 ketchup has 3600kj (average intake 8700kj) Now this would be one meal for most so you would still be having your breakfast and lunch/dinner/snacks.
So as you see junk food has a lot of calories, but it feels like you are not eating much, they are mostly high glycaemic load so are broken down pretty quick and rapidly absorbed. And mostly not much nutrition in them.
So what is the takeaway (no pun intended) from this?
This is how I would describe the way I eat and yes I do consciously have to control my weight, when I eat too much I put on weight. It is working out your energy balance. You eat more than what your body requires you put on weight.
• If you have junk food be aware of the energy it contains and either eat less of it or less often. Eat it mindfully and without guilt. Enjoy it for what it is and eat it if you love it. This means don’t get a lower calorie/low fat/sugar free version if you won’t enjoy it as much as the real version (like ice cream!) savour it, make it last, relax…the calories in junk food adds up, you think you are not eating much but you are consuming energy dense foods.
• Eat lots of low calorie, energy dense foods like vegetables. For weight this helps you control your calories, the volume of the vegetables helps fill you as well as the water and fibre content. Not to mention you have phytochemicals, vitamins and minerals.
• The more satiated you are with nourishing wholefoods the less room you have for junk foods. But you can still put on weight with wholefoods if you are not in energy balance.
• Out of sight out of mind. If it is not in the house you cannot eat it. Understand not just that you are eating junk, but WHY? What is the emotion behind it? Are there unresolved issues?
A lot of people think that grains have low nutrition in them, I have to disagree basing it off these comparisons, looks like oats are very nutritious if you ask me! You may be thinking I am a vegetarian- I am not. I love meat..I loves eggs and oats! I just get so annoyed with people claiming that grains are not nutritious. Annoyed with people saying there is more fibre in fruit and veg-there isn't. If you do not tolerate grains thats fine, but we don't need to make stuff up to prove our point do we?
I also don't think we should be comparing 2 totally different foods, Why compare apples with oranges anyway?
But here we are comparing them anyway! lol....only because I am annoyed with people dissing oats and comparing them to eggs and other meats.
So looking at this comparison above we see that 100g oats contain more iron, thiamine, niacin, folate, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, zinc, and manganese than 100g eggs (2 eggs) Oats also have 11g fibre, including soluble fibre and beta glucans.
Beta-glucan has been shown to enhance the human immune system's response to bacterial infection. Beta-glucan not only helps neutrophils (the most abundant type of non-specific immune cell) navigate to the site of an infection more quickly, it also enhances their ability to eliminate the bacteria they find there.
In addition, oats contain more than 20 unique polyphenols, avenanthramides, which have shown strong antioxidant activity in vitro and in vivo. The polyphenols of oats have also recently been shown to exhibit anti-inflammatory, antiproliferative, and anti-itching activity, which may provide additional protection against coronary heart disease, colon cancer, and skin irritation.
Another point people going on about the GI of foods. (oats)
Glycemic Index (GI) is a measurement carried out on carbohydrate-containing foods and their impact on our blood sugar.
Typically, a food is consumed in whatever serving size will provide 50 grams of available carbohydrates. Available carbohydrates are carbohydrates that get readily digested, absorbed, and metabolized by our body. These carbohydrates have a much greater impact on our blood sugar level than carbohydrates in general because carbohydrates in general include substances that aren't readily digested, absorbed, and metabolized. Insoluble fibers, for example, are carbohydrates that do not have an immediate impact on our blood sugar level because they cannot be readily digested. As a very general way of estimating available carbohydrates in a serving of food, researchers take the total amount of carbohydrates and subtract out the total amount of fiber. Available carbohydrates are what's left.
The GI of a food isn't really that helpful, there are some pretty unhealthy food that have a low GI rating, just like there is healthy food with a high GI.
Low GI is 0-55
Medium GI is 56-69
High GI is 70 or more
1 cup of porridge (234g)
Porridge has a GI of 58
21 net carbs
Glycemic load of 12
The glycemic load is a bit more useful as this measures in a serving size you are likely to be eating. So the more of that food you have the high the glycemic load becomes.
Glycemic index x Grams of carbohydrates / 100
so for oats a GI of 58 x 21g net carbs and divided by 100 =12
Now the the Insulin Index is not the same as a glycemic index, which is all relative to eating 100% glucose, as this index is relative to eating white bread (glycemic index of ~70 to 75). Glycemic Index and Insulin Index scores show the increase in the blood concentration of each. A higher satiety score indicates how much less was eaten from a buffet after participants ate the listed food.
The Insulin Index is based on the consumption of 1,000kJ of the given food.
What was found was a high correlation between glycemic index and insulin index measurements. High protein, virtually no-carb foods like meat and eggs, while low on the glycemic index, measured high on the insulin index. In other words, while the meat and eggs didn’t cause a spike in blood sugar the way most carbohydrates do, they did result in an unexpectedly significant rise in insulin. (Baked goods, with their high levels of refined carbs, elicited a very high rise in insulin as well.
Porridge- glycemic index score of 60 ± 12
Inusulin score of 40 ± 4
satiety index 209
Eggs- glycemic index score 42 ± 16
Insulin score 31 ± 6
Satiety score 150
± indicate uncertainty in the data. For example 60 ± 12 means that there's a 95% chance the score is between 60-12 (48) and 60+12 (72), 60 being the highest probability assuming a bell curve. In practice this means that if two foods have large uncertainty and have values close together then you don't really know which score is the higher.
to see more foods
"If we put two people to work doing labour, one eating oats, one eating eggs, I know which one would have the longer endurance for the task"
Well this is just one persons opinion have a read below at he satiety index
240 calories of porridge won over 240 calories of eggs.
Studies by Australian researcher Dr. Susanna Holt and her associates at the University of Sydney have developed one of the most exciting diet concepts ever. Called, the "Satiety Index," Holt's tool ranks different foods on their ability to satisfy hunger.
Holt et al. drew up the Satiety Index by feeding 240-calorie portions of 38 different foods to volunteers. The foods were served from under a hood to minimize the influence of appearance, and, if possible, they were served at the same temperature and in the same size chunks.
After eating, the volunteers told the scientists what their appetite ratings were, but they were not allowed anything else for the next two hours. Then, after two hours, they were then allowed to eat from a small buffet, where the scientists measured how much they nibbled from a variety of other foods. Their consumption was closely monitored, and every 15 minutes they were questioned about their hunger to see if their subjective impression of satisfaction matched their eating behavior.
Using white bread as the baseline of 100, 38 different foods were ranked. In other words, foods scoring higher than 100 are more satisfying than white bread and those under 100 are less satisfying.
eggs were ranked at 150%
porridge was ranked at 209%
boiled potatoes were ranked at 323%
for more info
Another thing I saw was oats don't have that much fibre compared with fruit and vegetables but again I disagree. These oats are 11g fibre per 100g so that gives us 11% fiber. So I went looking for high fibre fruit and veg and got these figures. Maybe not as high as you thought?
2.2g fibre per 100g potato
1.6g fibre per 100g celery
7g fibre in 100g avocado
6g fibre in 100g raspberries
2.6g fibre per 100g broccoli
2.5g fibre per 100g cabbage
2.6g fibre per 100g banana
3.1g fibre per 100g pear
Here is a comparison to some other foods with protein:
14g protein in 100g quinoa
17g protein in 100g oats
7g protein in 100g white rice
15g protein in 100g spelt
25g protein in 100g chicken
13g protein in 100g eggs (2 eggs)
17g protein in 100g oats
Oats are not a complete protein like eggs are, which is true. But we now know that we do not have to protein combine for each meal. This myth is so old i'm surprised people are still saying this:)
A complete protein is usually defined as a single or combined protein source which has all eight of the essential amino acids. Meat, for example, is said to be a complete protein, and so are eggs, dairy products, soybeans and many nuts.
The body has its own amino acid pool to draw from to supply amino acids which may be missing from dietary sources. Needed amino acids may be withdrawn from those already in circulation, or the necessary amino acids may be released by the liver or other cells into the circulatory system. The amino acid pool thus acts as the supplier of the essential amino acids missing from incomplete proteins.
If you take 60g oats and soak overnight with 100g greek yoghurt you have yourself 15g protein, the dairy is a complete protein anyway. 2 eggs has 13g protein and 3 has 18g protein. In the scheme of things it does not matter that oats are not a complete protein. A plant based diet is very beneficial to you, don't let anyone tell you it isn't!
Watch where you get your info from..are they biased?
and question everything!.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS BOTH ARE VERY NUTRITIOUS FOODS!
How often do we hear the arguments of why or why we shouldn’t consume dairy? Heaps yeah? Have you ever stop to think about the argument? Is it based on your own beliefs, ethics, moral, medical reasons or are they based on science? Does it matter?
How does one prove or disprove if we are meant to consume dairy? Ever wondered about the history of dairy and how it came about? I don’t want to get into the whole it’s all about what they have done to the milk, I really want to talk about the evolutionary aspect.
Some of us can and do drink it and some don’t and cannot, no one is right or wrong. Consume it or don’t consume it doesn’t matter to me! We are all unique.
Let me ask you this…If we were not “meant” to drink it why did lactase persistence spread so quickly? There must have been some evolutionary advantageous reason for this surely?
The reason that really gets my goat is the one we are not “meant” to consume it, whatever that means…according you who, cause you say so? What are you basing this off, and of course they say we are the only mammals who drink milk after weaning, but that is not true either. We are supposed to be the most intelligent mammal and hopefully have intelligent arguments. Most mammals do not have the capacity to get the milk for a start, yes they can suckle but they don’t have opposable thumbs to actually milk! and if they did they would drink it!
In southern Europe, lactase persistence is relatively rare — less than 40% in Greece and Turkey. In Britain and Scandinavia, by contrast, more than 90% of adults can digest milk. So why do we have lactase persistence if we weren’t “meant” to consume it??? Did evolution screw this up? Think about it. It was advantageous to have it. Why? Will talk more about this later.
Most mammals lose the ability to digest the milk sugar lactose after weaning because of an irreversible reduction in expression of the intestinal enzyme lactase. This pattern is also seen in most humans, but some continue expressing lactase throughout adult life [lactase persistence (LP)]. This trait is common in populations of northern and central European descent and shows intermediate frequencies in southern and Eastern Europe. Africa and the Middle East show a more complex distribution.
It has been suggested that the modern frequency of LP in Europe is the result of a relatively recent and strong selection process. Although not fully understood, the biological advantages of LP probably include the continuous availability of an energy- and calcium-rich drink that enables a farming community to overcome poor harvests. This gene is quite recent and spread pretty rapidly which in turn means in must have conferred an advantage strongly selected for by evolution.
Given that dairying in the Middle East started thousands of years before the LP allele emerged in Europe, ancient herders must have found ways to reduce lactose concentrations in milk. It seems likely that they did so by making cheese or yogurt. (Fermented cheeses such as feta and cheddar have a small fraction of the lactose found in fresh milk; aged hard cheeses similar to Parmesan have hardly any.)
Milk fat on pottery in the Middle Eastern Fertile Crescent going back at least 8,500 years offers clear evidence that herders in Europe were producing cheese to supplement their diets between 6,800 and 7,400 years ago. By then, dairy had become a component of the Neolithic diet.
That next step happened slowly, and it seems to have required the spread of lactase persistence. The LP allele did not become common in the population until sometime after it first emerged. Mutations in samples of ancient human DNA and has found it only as far back as 6,500 years ago in northern Germany.
As Middle Eastern Neolithic cultures moved into Europe, their farming and herding technologies helped them to out-compete the local hunter-gatherers. As the southerners pushed north, the LP allele started spreading.
Lactase persistence had a harder time becoming established in parts of southern Europe, because Neolithic farmers had settled there before the mutation appeared. But as the agricultural society expanded northwards and westwards into new territory, the advantage provided by lactase persistence had a big impact.
The answer is neither or both, confused?
Firstly there are many cultures around the world who have a high carb diet. In fact if you look at the worldwide chart (in the comments) you will see that there are many high carb eating people around the world. Most of them are over 60% of their daily intake as carbs, some are as high as 80%! What you might find very interesting is the US has 49% of their calories as carbs, the UK has 50% as carbs, and Australia 46%, which are the lowest around the world! And yet they’re some of the fattest and sickest nations, yes?
Hmmmmm….So do carbs in themselves make you fat according to % of carbs in your diet, or is it your absolute amount of carbs, or is it the total amount of calories consumed altogether? or is it the type of carbs, such as added sugars?(in which you may eat more) Are the fatter countries moving less? How is gut flora comparison?
Another comparison is calories consumed worldwide, US tops it at 3770 calories per day(161g fat) followed by Austria at 3760 cal (163g fat). So going by these charts would you take away from this that we are fat because we eat too much and that macronutrient per se doesn’t matter? Yeah I would. Just to note there doesn't appear to be any countries who are generally LCHF.
Most of Africa isn’t known to be a fat nation. Highest caloric intake is South Africa at 2990(65% carbs). 70% of adult South African women and nearly 40% of men are overweight or obese.
The lowest amount of calories goes to the Democratic Republic of the Congo at 1590 (80% carbs)
I tracked down heath info and found that 1.9% of the Congo have a BMI over 30 and the average BMI is 21. Wait a minute….. so you mean to tell me the Congo have a high % of carbs compared with South Africa yet are slimmer? Can I remind you that the people in the Congo are eating 1590 calories compared to 2990 calories in South Africa. Could it be they are slimmer because they eat less perhaps? Well if you went by carb % alone you would think that they would be fatter, right? I mean 80% diet as carb would have the LCHF enthusiasts spinning! But you also could to take into consideration what the absolute number of carbs is. Well the congo is eating 318g carbs a day and SA 486g carbs. So while SA IS eating more carbs they are also eating nearly twice the amount of calories the congo is eating even though the % of carbs is less.
The whole high carb thing making you fat is the foundation of their business so they might wish to stay in denial. Someone else might think maybe its not the carbs per se but the total energy intake, activity level, sex, age If you feel hungrier on carbs look at what the source of the carbs are, starch or sugar, refined or whole, fibre or no fibre? This makes a huge difference in appetite regulation, satiety and fullness.
So the question remains why is the US eating more than all other nations and are one of the fattest nations than everyone else in the world, yet they have one of the lowest carb intake in the world and carbs are “suppose” to make you fat?
My thought are this
If your diet has a lot of foods that are high glycemic load foods or refined processed foods, yes, including soft drinks. (Energy dense and nutrient poor) Pretty much these are foods not just high in carbs but ALSO high in fat including trans fats and PUFA’s. These foods/drinks eaten in large amounts and/or often enough will give you high blood sugar and you will release more insulin to shuttle that glucose where it needs to go, and then your blood sugar levels will drop which can lead to low blood sugar due to the over compensation of insulin. So you crash and you may feel dizzy, faint, headaches and really hungry so you reach for a chocolate bar or biscuit or other refined product to quickly get that blood sugar level up so you will feel better and so the cycle begins. Add to this high cortisol levels from stress, and what does cortisol do? It plays an important role in glycogenolysis, the breaking down of glycogen to glucose and also increase blood sugar through gluconeogenesis. This is making glucose from non-carbohydrate carbon substrates such as pyruvate, lactate, glycerol, and glucogenic amino acids.
So you end up eating more, you eat more you get heavier, your chances of metabolic syndrome go up, you may become insulin resistant and when you are insulin resistant you have an abnormal response to carbohydrates AND fats, and then you have free fatty acids and lots of glucose in the blood that has nowhere to go. So the beta cells suffer oxidative stress and inflammation due to the high nutrient exposure and then eventually apoptosis or auto cell destruction. Then you have type 2 diabetes.
So you have stress and highly refined foods/drink products that don’t satisfy, have empty calories, so you may end up eating more due to rapid drops in blood glucose and the food is highly palatable which make it easier to eat more energy dense/low nutrient food. This is food that is convenient and its everywhere you go. Plus you may have stress in your life causing your body to make more glucose. Which perpetuates the cycle. I don’t see any of these refined foods taking up a space in the guidelines, stop blaming the guidelines! Most people are not even aware of a serving size or the amount of fat/sugar/energy a food has.
Calories do matter as you see in the charts, it doesn't mean you have to count them, and there probably isn't a county in Africa that counts calories. Listen to your body to amount it actual needs not the amount you want. It is ok to feel hunger! Those of you that practise intermittent fasting will know what real hunger is!
The macronutrients per se don’t matter, what does matter is what that macronutrient is made up of and if that macronutrient is satisfying your hunger and/or causing you too eat more. If you have a diet high in carbs, you have enough protein for your body and this way of eating doesn’t cause you to eat more and keeps you healthy then there is nothing wrong with this way of eating! Something interesting, there is only essential fatty acid deficiency. In the same way we can make glucose from other sources if we need to we can also make all the fat the body requires if we need to. Yes glucose can be made into palmitate, which is a saturated fat(so theoretically we don't need to eat saturated fats but i love bacon and butter so that isn't going to happen!) Our body is pretty smart!
Just eat real food and eat what is right for your body, if what you are eating isn't getting you where you want to be then change, you just may be surprised what other ways of eating may achieve for you. Aim for nutrient density not macronutrients.
The best diet is the one you adhere to, the one you like eating, satisfies you, keeps you healthy, and covers all your nutrients. These is no right or wrong here. Let’s stop blaming one macronutrient please and just focus on having a whole food diet. No one is saying don’t eat junk food, just be mindful, reduce the amount you have and also the frequency. There is a big difference in calories, fat and sugar in 2 tam-tams than there is a whole packet!
Do you know how much you are REALLY eating? and does your body actually need that amount? I support many different diets, from LCHF to paleo, to higher carb, to gluten free/dairy free, each person is an individual so let’s treat them as one and stop putting everyone the same box. What I don’t like is people either lying, not telling the whole truth or perhaps ignorance on not knowing any better just to suit their agenda. Not cool!
Food is meant to be just fuel for us, but as we all know food is so much more than this….what I notice is food being labelled as bad and we shouldn't not go near it and may evoke a sense of guilt that we should eat it as it isn't nourishing enough or it has too much sugar etc…
Take a bowl of pasta for example…you think of this as not nourishing for us, a food made of flour and eggs, something to avoid. However what about thinking of food as nourishing the soul? I think of people with Italian background, as little kids who used to make fresh pasta with their nonnas, picking and preparing the tomatoes for the pasta sauce, stirring the sauce together and being in the garden and putting your face in a bunch of basil and smelling the aroma of it…..picking the basil and throwing it in the pasta sauce…but now pasta seems to be such a cuss word…to be honest it makes me a little sad that we can no longer enjoy the occasional bowl of pasta without the voices (and face bookers) in our heads telling us this is bad, this has little nutrition etc…it’s not all about the nutrition sometimes!!
1 bowl of pasta (or insert a not so nourishing food here) does not equal an unhealthy diet just as 1 salad does not make a healthy diet. Can we not just eat for joy? For memories? Because we like it? We want it? It is your overall dietary pattern that makes your diet a good one. The best diet is one that you enjoy, you embrace, one that you can stay on for the rest of your life.
This is a page about enjoying your food, embracing new flavours, trying new cooking techniques, finding new foods to try, trying new recipes, making things you have never made before, making small changes along the way, making better changes, it isn’t a paleo page, it isn’t a low fat page, its not a page about being 100% perfect with your diet and then you screw up and feel massively guilty about it. Yes, food is fuel, food should be able to nourish you….but food is more than that. When we celebrate there is food, birthdays there is food, Christmas there is food, funerals there is food, and everything we do is evolved around food. Even in cultures around the world we see the same thing everyone coming together, spending time together, laughing together, cooking together and just enjoying what they are eating without some tribe member making them feel ashamed for eating that coal roasted turtle brain or whatever! There are plenty of other pages around that are straight up, never eat this, never eat that, this way is the only way of eating etc…do not come here and criticise my food choices just because you choose not to eat them. You can go somewhere else and do that. This is wholefood, nutrition, information, cooking page for everyone to come and enjoy. Information I present is not to be taken in place of medical advice nor is it about anyone feeling guilty or ashamed. You can read my posts and decide for yourself what you want to do with it.
You only need to watch certain cooking shows where contestants have beautiful memories of food with their loved one, remind them of a special time they had together, a moment in time that they always cherish, so many emotions, tears…how powerful are these memories and smells?!?! We don’t need to take that away, we need common sense and a diet that contains mostly whole foods. Some people will need to be more careful what they eat than others. That is just how it is.
A smell can bring on a flood of memories, influence people's moods and even affect their work performance. Because the olfactory bulb is part of the brain's limbic system, an area so closely associated with memory and feeling it's sometimes called the "emotional brain," smell can call up memories and powerful responses almost instantaneously.
The olfactory bulb has intimate access to the amygdala, which processes emotion, and the hippocampus, which is responsible for associative learning. Despite the tight wiring, however, smells would not trigger memories if it weren't for conditioned responses. When you first smell a new scent, you link it to an event, a person, a thing or even a moment. Your brain forges a link between the smell and a memory -- associating the smell of chlorine with summers at the pool or lilies with a funeral. When you encounter the smell again, the link is already there, ready to elicit a memory or a mood. Chlorine might call up a specific pool-related memory or simply make you feel content. Lilies might agitate you without your knowing why. This is part of the reason why not everyone likes the same smells.
Because we encounter most new odours in our youth, smells often call up childhood memories. But we actually begin making associations between smell and emotion before we're even born.
Should we be labelling food good and bad? Does this help form a healthy relationship with food?
For example a fullfat organic yoghurt with say 15g sugar per serve…now some will say well theres a lot of sugar in there not a good choice. Too much sugar compared to what? Some will say well what about the rest of this persons diet? What are their goals, what are their health issues? When you access a food in regards to eating it you have to consider the big picture not just how high the sugar content is before you cast something out. Perhaps a lower sugar option might be better but it’s not necessary to cut out all sugar from your diet, doing that may have someone craving sugar and may end with and unhealthy relationship with food, perhaps you might become obsessed about it? It is always about context, the quantity and how often sugar is consumed.
But overall the person who eats this has a low sugar diet and they like the idea of yoghurt but don’t like taste of natural yoghurts. No blood sugar issues, no fatigue etc so keep eating the yoghurt unless you have a reason not to have it. Always look at their overall diet and symptoms, not just singling out one item. A suggestion might be to get the natural yoghurt and just add your own honey or maple to taste.
This shits me to no end!
Whenever there is a high carb food (lets say it’s porridge ) mentioned there are always those people that say
x amount of carbs/grains = sugar
What do you think about this how does this statement make you feel? freaked out?
I say…” So what” This statement makes me feel…. humoured in a sense… I usually feel puzzled as well… like they are comparing a bowl of porridge/grains to a bowl of sugar and thinking they are the same thing. Hmmmm, that’s a sad and weird way to look at food.
Well what is the difference you say? All carbs get broken down to glucose so all carbs are just a bowl of sugar, pretty simplistic huh? No so fast. When nature made carbs she puts the “antidote” with it. An exception may have been honey and other unprocessed sugars we have always eaten. Now what do I mean by this?
Some people describe carbs as “poison” and some carbs if eaten in large enough quantities might be poison. But mother nature gets her sources of carbs and makes sure there is the antidote which is fibre and/or fat/and/or protein…so we think potatoes they have fibre, we think oats there is fibre, protein and fat, we think fruit we have fibre. Fibre and fat and protein they slow down the absorption of glucose and/or give volume or raise glucagon. Glucagon works the opposite to insulin; this guy works in between meals and signals your liver to make glucose to keep blood sugar in a normal range. There are a lot of other hormones involved in things like appetite control, hunger signals, fat storage etc… not just insulin and glucagon.
When foods such as grains are processed to death the antidote is taken away and all you are left with is the starch, which will make your blood sugar levels skyrocket! All the nutrition is taken out pretty much. Not to mention the unrefined food contain many vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients as well as can still have the fibre and fat- these carbs are NOT the same as a bowl of sugar and anyone that thinks it is…well….that’s their prerogative. It makes me feel like they are a carb phobe and thinks that carbs are unhealthy or something! Or just plain doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to understand.
We all know that carbs raise blood sugar and therefore raise insulin levels. And some carbs raise it more than others. Amino acids (proteins) and some fatty acids don’t raise blood sugar but DO raise insulin. For example fish and beef raise insulin more than pasta, all bran and porridge! Generally porridge is a lowish gi food, the finer the oats the higher the gi rating (quick oats) so it won’t raise it as much as say, rice bubbles or cornflakes, and if you some “antidote” like coconut milk, butter, chia seeds etc… then you can slow down the rate of absorption.
A person who has a normal response to glucose will have no problems using the glucose from a high carb meal, production of using fat as fuel will be shut down so the glucose can be used as energy or stored, then between meals it’s back to using fat. Of course (hopefully) you have a nice big fast from dinner to breakfast or whenever your next day meal is and this gives your body an opportunity to use stored glucose (glycogen from your liver/muscles and fat from your fat cells (adipocytes) Post meals spikes in insulin are a normal response to a meal and do not give you type 2 diabetes unless they are chronically elevated and insulin never gets a chance to go back to baseline or your liver is making too much glucose raising your blood sugar levels this way (there can be other factors involved as well)
Some will be full till lunch with porridge and some wont, it will depend on your individual response to glucose as well as what it is served with, the amount and the type of carbs consumed, the way I see if it aint broke then don’t fix it. If what you eat isn’t getting the results you are after then change it, don’t keep doing the same things over and expecting a different result! Eat to what suits YOUR body.
If you need any help with your eating then contact me today to make your appointment! Available in person or by skype/email