 I have been watching a series on you tube called “Secret Eaters”
It’s pretty interesting and would be good for people that either can’t seem to lose weight or don’t know why they have been putting on weight. It’s about people contacting the show, they have been eating “healthy” according to them but cannot work out why they have been putting on weight and can’t seem to lose it. Most of them felt like they didn’t over eat. So they hook up cameras in their house and also have a surveillance team to watch their every move. What they found absolutely had all these people in shock. These people had no idea how firstly what healthy meant, no idea about what a portion size is. Eating some healthy foods does not negate all the junk they had in their diet. And eating healthy foods you can still put on weight if you are eating more than you need, very easy with fats as they have twice the calories as protein and carbs. Yes fats are good, to a point! If you want to include plenty of fats, it needs to be balanced out overall with everything else, or you will put on weight or won’t be able to lose it! This was all a massive reality check, they found out where they were going wrong, some really upset with themselves. You have to know where you are going wrong to be able to fix it, and you also have to be honest with yourself. They did a diet diary where their calories were added up, but what they said they were eating did not explain their weight gain. When they added up what they ate from watching them and adding everything up, perhaps everything they dismissed, forgot about- you could then see what they said they were eating was WAY off. In some cases was twice as much as they needed for them. The biggest things were alcohol calories, processed sweet/fatty snacks, portion sizes from eating out and also serving sizes at home, and most of them, if not all of them had no idea about the amount of calories in their food, no idea! They grossly underestimated the energy density that food had. They ate that much not because they were necessarily hungry but because of habit, boredom, convenience (grabbing high calorie snacks on the run). There was a lot of mindless eating in front of the TV, mindless eating at work, eating on the run. So when everything was revealed to them and it hit home, they could see exactly where they needed to make changes. They had an eating plan laid out, not a diet, not deprivation at all, because they were overweight the diet consisted of the calories that were needed to maintain a normal weight, which was 1600-2500 depending on sex and height. They were followed up 4-6 weeks later and they all lost weight, and they found it pretty easy once that awareness was there, no one felt deprived or hungry! Now from watching this program you might get some clues to where you are going wrong, or where some little changes can be made. Writing a food diary and logging EVERYTHING and using an app like my fitness pal it may become clearer for you. Especially when it comes to alcohol, snack choices and portion sizes and knowing where your calories are coming from because it seems that not many people know the energy density of foods or what the right portion size (for them) entails. They severely underestimated what they really ate and were in denial and not honest with themselves. They learnt a lot and having the right information got them losing weight and feeling good! Awesome outcome! Are you a secret eater Dinielle  If you are not happy about something in your life and it is in your power to change it, do it!
How do you know you are truly ready? That is the question you need to ask yourself and you have to be as honest as you can with yourself. Firstly what is truly stopping you? Quite often you can be your own worst enemy and you can self-sabotage yourself! Do you know what you need to do to get there? If not do you know someone that can help you? It doesn’t matter how slow you need to go, either way whether you do something about it or not the time is still going pass, so you can either work towards where you want to be or stay where you are. Get the help you need to make it happen. The reminds me of when I first was deciding whether to study or not, yes I could tell myself all the excuses in the world why I couldn’t do it, like I don’t have the time, I don’t have the money, I’m not smart enough, it will be too hard, what if I’m no good at it? But do you know what? The more I was thinking about it the more that idea was in my head until eventually the thought of not studying and being a nutritionist was worse than the thought of doing it! Meaning I had come to the point of no return, I could see the future and what I wanted for that future and that future was me being a nutritionist, I didn’t want to stay doing what I was doing, even though not doing would have been the easiest option for sure! Yes it took hard work, persistence, mental blocks of it being hard, but in the end underneath it all I believed I could do it, I had to do it, not doing it was not an option anymore. If you want something enough you will find a way to do it. You owe it to yourself to push the excuses aside that you tell yourself and make a start! Overcoming food habits, wanting to lose weight or to improve your health, getting a job, getting fit, even just cleaning the house! - all these things won’t change if you do nothing, and in the end you might just surprise yourself, because you can do anything (in your power) if it means enough to you and you want it bad enough. Where there is a will there is a way, isn’t there? If you would like to work with me, feel free to drop me a line for a chat :) Dinielle  A lifetime of habits seem so hard to change, habits feel as natural as breathing, your habits are a comfort to you, its familiarity and they are so difficult to break. New habits that replace old habits are hard work and you consciously have to make yourself do it, you have to push and it does take all your effort, it doesn’t feel natural to you, it doesn’t feel part of your routine…yet….but if you keep making the changes one day you won’t have to think about it anymore, you won’t call your diet “A healthy diet”, it will just be called “ This is what I eat” this is my diet that just happens to be healthy (But still not depriving yourself of your favourite things).
This is what happened to me many years ago when I started thinking more about a new healthier lifestyle, I remember thinking to myself everyday….oh today I was good and I ate healthy, but most days was not like this! I just couldn’t seem to eat healthy most days…To be honest it just felt like hard work and seemed all too hard because there were many aspects of my diet I wasn’t happy with, as well as issues with my weight. My weight came on while I had spent some time travelling overseas. I remember I was in Thailand and I stepped on a scale outside the shop and was horrified and I actually thought there is no way that scale is right, it has to be wrong! In retrospect it must have be right but I was in denial and not facing the reality. I had been eating way more than I normally would, as you do while travelling so how did I think I wasn’t going to gain weight? The amount of walking I was doing did not negate the amount of food I was eating! The truth hurts, but not realising is not a great way to live and doesn’t help you. How can you change what you don’t acknowledge? So I guess back about 10 years ago I started making small changes, making it more nutrient dense, adding in some exercise here and there, really looking at snacking and portion sizes and I learnt about the amount of calories in food because they do matter, it is helpful to know where your calories come from. It’s just being aware, so you can look back on your diet and you can see where it is you might be going wrong. I find that the amount we eat is really underestimated, and especially when it comes to junk food. Also alcohol and other liquids like juices and soft drinks, they are in addition to meals not instead of (usually!). The real passion came in 2006 and this is when I decided to become a nutritionist and I was working out regularly because I was working in a gym (as a massage therapist at the time). Of course over all this time my weight was coming down to a point where I was happy, but it’s weird though because even though I knew I wasn’t overweight anymore I still had “fat” days where I still felt I was bigger than I actually was. I think for some people you just will never be happy with your body, especially women. We are soooo hard on ourselves! Somehow you have to learn how to be happy with your body –no matter what weight you are. But if you want to change it doesn’t just happen, you have to actively do something. The change has to come from you and no one else, sometimes people even get that light bulb moment where you are just like: That’s it!..enough is enough I can’t continue like this, because even though change is hard, not changing and staying the same might be even harder! I need to make some changes TODAY, not tomorrow, not next week, not after that birthday….TODAY!! Now what will my plan be? How will I get there? It will be hard but I really really want this, and not doing anything is not an option for me anymore. If what you are doing right now is not getting you the result you want then do something else, try a new way, get some help with someone who can give you insight. You cannot expect a different result by doing the same thing over and over again-that is the definition of insanity right?! Does any of this sound familiar? Comment below!  I would like to start out by all means avoid specific additives if you know you react to them, this isn’t about you guys. This is more about scaremongering and worst case possibility that would be very rare. Just like someone reacting to gluten, strawberries, nuts, shellfish etc….doesn't mean the food is bad, just means it’s bad for YOU.
I think this kind of food shaming is not helpful as the person reporting might think it is, I actually hate seeing people do this because everything gets taken out of context. It ends up not even being relevant. You may have noticed many well-meaning people taking a product and saying things like these are linked to cancer! Will mutant your cells! “Chemical cocktail”, science experiment for your cancerous mix of ingredients! “neuro-toxicity and allergic reactions!” inflammatory bowel disease & gastrointestinal cancers! But…is there any truth to this? I am assuming this is just taking from an additive website and I wonder where they have gotten their info from because when I looked up on the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) they seem to think after all the testing for that particular additive it is deemed safe at the levels typically used in each specific product. What is going on here is either misinformation depending on where they looked up their info or what happens at high doses that you will not be having. So then I think what is the point of telling us this? If you have something that is not a dose deemed to be toxic then it is not a poison at all! I have said this before, everything is “toxic” at the right dose! It doesn’t make it a poison unless it is at a dose to be harmful. Like alcohol, nicotine, salt, water, formaldehyde in pears and cyanide in apples. Chemicals are in everything. If an additive actually causes these things in the dose that they are consumed why are these companies not getting sued for damages, why are the products not be taken off the shelf? Because you don’t consumes them in a high enough dose to be harmful. The dose is what people are not understanding, you can't take something at a very high dose and broadcast this to everyone as dangerous and cancer causing without some context and perhaps the whole truth might be a good idea too. We are talking about a shop bought chocolate milk, you may have never seen chocolate milk broken down like this. This person claims she and her children are not science experiments! The main uses with the products were the colours E133 and E155, the gum E407 (carrageenan) and of course the milk solids “these are also highly inflammatory to the body so will exacerbate any aches and pains in your joints.” (Possibly true for some?) With some added “If you have this in your fridge it belongs in the bin NOT in your body.” Talk about suck the fun out of chocolate milk! E155 (brown) With regard to the colour Brown HT (E 155) – which can also be used in soft drinks, bakery products and confectionery, as well as sauces, seasonings and pickles – the Panel has halved the previous ADI to 1.5 milligrams per kilogram of bodyweight (mg/kg bw). Based on the maximum permitted use levels for this colour, together with food consumption data from several countries, the Panel concludes that exposure to Brown HT could be above the new ADI for adults and children who regularly consume large amounts of foods containing the colour. For example, a child weighing 15kg consuming more than 1.125 litres (around 3.4 standard-sized 330ml cans) of soft drinks containing Brown HT at the maximum reported use level every day would exceed the ADI of 1.5 mg/kg bw. Long term toxicity and carcinogenicity studies with Brown HT are available with rats and mice. No carcinogenic effects were observed in either species. No adverse effects were reported in rats at dietary dose levels up to 425 mg/kg bw/day (highest dose tested). Currently, Brown HT is an authorised synthetic food colouring substance in the EU, with a maximal allowed use level of 50 to 500 mg/kg food for various foodstuffs The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) conducted an ad hoc survey in which artificial colours were analytically determined in 201 retail ready-to-drink soft drinks selected for being distinctly coloured (FSA, 2003). Brown HT was found to be present at a level higher than 0.1 mg/L (Limit of Detection - LOD) in 2 products, with levels ranging from 2 to 18 mg/L. E133 brilliant blue The Panel concluded that the present data set on the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion, genotoxicity, subchronic, reproductive, developmental and long-term toxicity, and carcinogenicity give reason to revise the ADI of 10 mg/kg bw/day allocated by SCF in 1984. The Panel considered that the NOAEL of 631 mg/kg bw/day from the chronic toxicity study in rat can be used to allocate a new ADI to Brilliant Blue FCF. By application of an uncertainty factor of 100, the Panel established a new ADI to Brilliant Blue FCF equal to 6 mg/kg bw/day. In the case of Brilliant Blue FCF, the maximum permitted use level in beverages was 200 mg/l The default proportion (25%) of beverages and solid food that could contain the additive was considered adequate. In fact, even though Brilliant Blue FCF may be used in a variety of solid foods that could represent more than 25% of processed foods, it is unlikely that a person would systematically choose all processed foods with the same colour added even considering brand loyalty. This assumes that a typical adult weighing 60 kg consumes daily 1.5 litres of beverages and 375 grams of solid foods containing Brilliant Blue FCF. Reported typical use levels mg/l for flavoured milk products were found to be 0.1mg/l E407, carrageenan Carrageenan is derived from several species of red seaweed that is used for the textural stabilization of foods. This is one that gets confused, what is happening here is the studies are using molecularly degraded form of carrageenan called poligeenan, which has never been used in food applications. Unfortunately, the broad term "carrageenan" is often used in error to describe both poligeenan and food-grade carrageenan, which causes confusion between the two. Poligeenan was previously known as "degraded carrageenan" in scientific papers and is considered a possible carcinogen to humans; FOOD-GRADE carrageenan is not. The only relationship between food grade carrageenan and poligeenan is that carrageenan is the starting material for creating poligeenan. Poligeenan is not an inherent component of carrageenan and cannot be produced in the digestive tract from carrageenan-containing foods because the production process for poligeenan requires high temperature treatment of carrageenan with strong acids for an extended period of time. This completely alters its molecular structure and molecular weight and renders it useless for food applications. “Dietary CGN has been shown to lack carcinogenic, tumor promoter, genotoxic, developmental, and reproductive effects in animal studies. CGN in infant formula has been shown to be safe in infant baboons and in an epidemiology study on human infants at current use levels.” “Food-grade carrageenan is a safe natural product prepared from seaweed. Its addition to food imparts many desirable characteristics which have allowed it to be used continuously for centuries. The long safe history of this natural food additive is confirmed by negative results in subchronic and chronic feeding studies in many animal species, mutagenicity studies and reproductive toxicity studies.” http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/1536.pdf http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/1853.pdf http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12389870 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24467586 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2058470 Who saw the SBS program on “What’s the right diet for you?”
I have popped the link at the bottom so you can watch it, it was really good and gives a pretty good insight to different ways why people overeat and are overweight and the best diets for them. I watched it and typed up a rather long summary, but I didn’t want to miss out too much! After reading or watching what type of the 3 eaters do you think you are? Can you think of any other groups? “Genes, hormones, psychology to find out what kind of eater they are” “People overeat for many reasons and it may be due to our individual make up. The answer could lead us to the perfect diet to lose weight.” Many people yoyo diet all their lives and you end up going back to their old ways, but why? “Diets are about habits, you can’t will yourself to lose weight” What is the right diet for you? The first of the study was a dinner where they served sushi, the study has already begun, and the experts are watching what is going on. They wanted to find out if this group overeat for the reasons suggested in their assessment. The first group were called the feasters This is the group that when they start eating they can’t stop. Gut hormones were tested and the people who had the smallest rise were in the feasters group. These are the hormones that tell us we have had enough and we should stop eating. This hormone called GLP1 or glucagon-like-peptide 1 is weaker in the feasters group. For the average person 5-6 of these sushi plates would be enough but many of the feasters had eaten 12 or more, one person was up to 17 plates of sushi. This is almost the amount of food you should consume in 1 day for some. The plates varied from 9 plates to as high as 19 plates eaten. Gut hormones are a fairly new field and is pretty exciting :) So what we all want to know is why GLP1 is low? And better still can we increase it, what kind of diet is right for the feasters? Keep reading! The 2nd group of eaters are the emotional eaters due to psychological issues. These people turn to food when depressed, stressed or anxious. This test they did here was a driving test to see if this affected the way they ate after, this test has been used to induce high levels of stress. The driver instructors were not friendly and failed everyone, no chit chat etc…it worked, and they were stressed! So they come back from the test and there are 2 groups- the non -emotional eaters and the emotional eaters. They knew they were stressed as cortisol was tested, this is a stress hormone. They compared the plates of food they ate. The emotional eaters ate 4 times as much chocolates, crisps, biscuits (sugary/fatty snacks) as the non-emotional group. People respond in different way to stress and the emotional eaters respond by using food to manage their emotion. So here we can find new ways to manage them. This group is at risk of gaining weight. The 3rd group are the constant cravers. (K.D Lang group, lol) This group want to eat all the time. Within the human body there are keys genes which if you have them that make you constantly want to eat. For most people when our fat stores are at a sufficient levels signals are sent to our brains and tell us we don’t need to eat. But in some people they have genes which disrupt these signals and trick their brain into thinking their fat stores need replenishing, they are hungry all the time. For the constant craving group they were fed a hearty lunch and were then invited back 2 hours later to test their response to different foods. They had a gripforce meter which they had to squeeze to show how much they wanted that food. The higher the number is the amount you desired the food, it was calibrated to represent their different strengths. Despite just eating lunch 2 hours earlier some of the people were pretty keen to have some of the foods. 8 foods were high in fat/sugar which are classic snacking foods. This constant craving group prefer the foods high in sugar and/or fat. Now none of these people knew at the beginning which group they were in so after these tests 3 groups were revealed as to which group they were placed in. Now the fun part how to address the issues and which diet is best for each group! The feasters group with the low levels of the gut hormones that tell you that you are full. This group needed a diet that would fill them for as long as possible. High protein low GI diet, this boosts your gut hormones to you don’t feel as hungry. Meat, beans, lentils, veggies, fruit- most rice, breads and white potato to be limited. This group were split into 2, one team had the low protein high gi group and one had the high protein low gi group with the same number of calories. What do you think happened? The high protein low gi group held off much longer in their hunger levels than the low protein high gi group. It was discovered that the GLP1 gut hormone continued to rise 3 hours after lunch for the high protein group, the low protein group was half the amount! The constant craving group were put on an intermittent fasting diet- for 2 days were to eat a small amount of food- no more than 800 calories- no carbs, just meat fish and eggs pretty much and the other 5 days to eat normally but healthy food. This should shock their bodies into burning fat. Some of the group really struggled with this. They did a pee test to test for ketones to see if they were burning fat and therefore losing weight, if they eat carbs they will go back to burning sugars not fat. They revealed how much they lost in 48 hours- minimum was ½ kg lost. The 3rd emotional eaters group were put on a low calorie diet, they develop habits that can be hard to break. Breaking habits and establish new ones. One way is through group support, email groups, weight loss meetings and comparing food dairies. One hard thing about weight loss is that the goals seem so far away and unattainable. This group were to absail down a really tall structure and the expert wanted to show them how to support each other to get through it. In their brains it shows that when the brain perceives the stress it increases your heart rate, raises blood pressure and releases glucose to your muscles this can make it harder to overcome the challenge you are facing- group support can help you overcome your emotion and feel in control again. The absail was pretty cool, they were freaked out but so happy they did it, when they always told themselves they couldn’t, they now felt they could do anything they wanted! Very cool! Sometimes we are our own worst enemy. We can be very hard on ourselves. http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/473114179533/What'sTheRightDietForYou?S1Ep1   Vegemite in Australia -not applicable to those who know they don’t tolerate vegemite, you guys can scroll on! Vegemite lovers grab a coffee and some vegemite toast and have a seat! I don’t eat or like vegemite- I think there are better tasting yeast spreads out there. But I chose vegemite for this post cause it’s so Australian! Yeah I’m doing it, a post on Vegemite, you have probably never seen vegemite through the eyes of a skeptic. Its food for thought. You don’t have to take all your favourite foods out to be healthy. Especially since they may make no meaningful difference. I’m not going to go as far as saying it’s a health food. Do you ever feel like you read posts on health/natural Facebook pages and websites and feel like they are not quite telling you the whole truth? Although you may take what is being said at face value. People tell you what they think you want to hear, people tell you because they read it somewhere, kind of like Australian vegemite whispers- or perhaps they didn’t really research it properly as they should have to bring you the whole truth? -Bottom line is- If it causes you no ill effect and you like it, eat it. That’s it. A 5g serve of vegemite is not going to be something I am going to lose sleep over. What you should focus on is what you should be eating more of, like lots of vegetables! Do you avoid a food just because someone said how “bad” it is?? Always try to think of any foods you eat if they will have a REAL LIFE effect, meaning if you are already eating vegemite and you are ok then it is likely this food is ok for you. (Vegemite is not gluten free) You only have a very small amount regardless. If you react to it, don’t eat it. If you like it and don’t want to stop eating it then don’t. I think there are way more important things to worry about in your diet than a small component of it, like vegemite. When people report some of the ingredients they are only reporting the effects at high doses, which you would never be consuming in a 5 g serve, so why bother pointing it out? To scare you of course, if there is something in your food that has been proven safe at the dose in which it is meant, for that specific product, then it is deemed safe (more the majority of the population). Yeast Extract (from Yeast Grown on Barley), Salt, Mineral Salt (508), Malt Extract (From Barley), Colour (150c), Flavours, Niacin, Thiamine, Riboflavin, Folate. In vegemite there is 1431 mg/100g- (72mg per 5g serve) – this is 0.072 of a gram of free glutamates- this is a small amount of glutamates. Let’s be clear, yeast extract is NOT MSG, just because someone said it is, it doesn’t make it true. Many people have claimed that certain food ingredients, such as autolyzed yeast and hydrolyzed protein, are MSG in disguise. They are not. Autolyzed yeast and hydrolyzed proteins, among other ingredients, are completely natural ingredients that happen to be have substantial amounts of glutamates, but nowhere near the concentration found in MSG. Autolyzed yeast (containing the cell walls) or autolyzed yeast extract consists of concentrations of yeast cells that are allowed to die and break up, so that the yeasts’ endogenous digestive enzymes break their proteins down into simpler compounds (amino acids and peptides). You find this in products like vegemite. Perspective: Glutamates Parmesan cheese=1200mg/100g Nori (seaweed) =1378mg/100g Peas=200mg/100g A 2006 consensus statement of a group of German experts drawing from animal studies was that a daily intake of glutamic acid of 6 grams per kilogram of body weight (6 g/kg/day) is safe. From human studies, the experts noted that doses as high as 147 g/day produced no adverse effects in males when given for 30 days; in a 70 kg male that corresponds to 2.1 g per kg of body weight. Total intake of glutamate from food in European countries is generally stable and ranged from 5 to 12 g/day. Someone who may have trouble metabolising glutamates may have GAD deficiency. Glutamate decarboxylase or glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) is an enzyme that catalyzes the decarboxylation of glutamate to GABA, so instead of forming calming GABA the glutamates hang around and excite the cells instead, party time! E508- Potassium chloride This will be reported as; “Associated with gastric ulcers, circulatory collapse, nausea, liver toxicity” E508 is used as a gelling agent, a stabiliser, thickener, flavour enhancer. Yes, in high doses that you will not be consuming! Potassium chloride is extensively used as a potassium supplement, both by physicians as a therapeutic modality and by the general public, mostly in the form of salt substitute. Remember that salt is SODIUM CHLORIDE and most people are having that. There is 173 mg sodium per serve (5g) in vegemite. It is high in sodium so I will caution with this one. But remember the serving size is small so keep it in context. The upper limit for sodium for a 1-3 year old is 1,000 mg/day going right up to 2300 mg/day for adults. The upper limit is based on population studies showing low levels of hypertension (less than 2%) and no other observed adverse effects in communities with intakes below this level. The UL was also based on experimental studies. The AI (Adequate Intake) is a value based on observed or experimentally determined approximations of nutrient intake by a group (or groups) of healthy people—used when an RDA cannot be determined. THE AI FOR SODIUM IS 200–400 MG/DAY FOR A 1-3 YEAR OLD AND UP TO 460-920 MG/DAY FOR AN ADULT. LD50 = 3020 mg/Kg for potassium chloride- table salt is 3000 mg/kg -The "LD50" is the dose of a substance that will kill a selected species of experimental animal 50% of the time. Perspective Caffeine (coffee, tea, cocoa) LD50 of 200mg/kg Nicotine (smokes) LD of 50mg/kg Sodium Chloride (table salt)- LD of 3000mg/kg Ethanol (alcohol) LD of 7000mg/kg Caffeine is more “toxic” than E508! And just as “toxic” as sodium chloride (salt) The colour (150c) This is what is reported; “Is thought to be genetically modified is prepared from ammonia compounds is linked to gastrointestinal and liver problems” Does VEGEMITE contain genetically modified ingredients? A. VEGEMITE, as well as all our products, does not contain genetically modified material. We only use food ingredients that meet our strict criteria of safety and quality conform to all relevant legal requirements and importantly, respond to the preferences of our customers and consumers. What this caramel 150c is as confirmed by vegemite; Caramel colour is typically produced from the heat treatment of carbohydrates or sugars. The colour (150c) used in Vegemite is a natural caramel food colour and is derived from maize. Vegemite state “ no artificial colors or flavors”   Flavors Usually people say the flavors are made up of 48 chemicals including solvents and diactyls but this is not confirmed for this product, and since vegemite do not disclose this info you don’t know- you are only guessing. Vegemite say “no artificial flavors”, so what is the opposite of artificial? I rang vegemite to discuss what the flavours were and they were not allowed to disclose it due to its secret recipe! Lol They also could not disclose the % of flavors nor the company in which they source their added vitamins from, and the form the vitamins came in. So that’s a bit of a bummer. I did find on vegemite history pages that celery and onion extracts were used, but I cannot confirm that this is the “flavor” used now. Vegemite claim “no artificial flavors” so it may well be still be onion and celery extracts. I don’t know and neither does anyone else except maybe the boss! Added Vitamins-To add; Conversion efficiency in some people may differ due to genetic variances. One of my questions I had for vegemite when I spoke to them was are the vitamins naturally occurring or are they added? I can confirm they are added. There is Thiamine (B1) Riboflavin (B2) Niacin (B3) and Folate (B9) So people thereby say; “Oh they are synthetic vitamins and your body doesn’t use them in the same way, they are bad!” I always think bananas in pyjamas when I see B1 and B2, hehe Thiamine (B1) Data on the bioavailability of thiamin from food are very limited. About 80% of thiamin in the adult human body is in the form of thiamin diphosphate (TDP; also known as thiamin pyrophosphate), the main metabolically active form of thiamin. Most dietary thiamin is in phosphorylated forms, and intestinal phosphatases hydrolyze them to free thiamin before the vitamin is absorbed. The remaining dietary thiamin is in free (absorbable) form. The most commonly used forms of thiamin in supplements are thiamin mononitrate and thiamin hydrochloride. One study concluded that “high blood levels of thiamine can be achieved rapidly with oral thiamine hydrochloride. Thiamine is absorbed by both an active and unsaturable passive transport mechanism up to 1500 mg.” Riboflavin (B2) Riboflavin must be converted to its active form – riboflavin 5'-phospate or Flavin mononucleotide (FMN) – in order for it to be utilized by the body. Supplemental riboflavin is found in the free form or riboflavin 5'-phosphate (FMN) Most of the riboflavin in our foods occurs as the nucleotides FAD/FADH2 and FMN/FMNH2 in a complex of food protein. This is released as free riboflavin by digestive enzymes in the small intestine and absorbed into the bloodstream. The bioavailability of riboflavin is high, probably about 95% Niacin (B3) “Niacin in mature cereal grains is largely bound and thus is only about 30 percent available; alkali treatment of the grain increases the percentage absorbed (Carpenter and Lewin, 1985; Carter and Carpenter, 1982). Niacin in the coenzyme nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide/nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NAD/NADP) form in meats appears to be much more available. NIACIN ADDED DURING ENRICHMENT OR FORTIFICATION IS IN THE FREE FORM AND THUS HIGHLY AVAILABLE” Folate/folic acid “The bioavailability of folate ranges from about 100 percent for folic acid supplements taken on an empty stomach to about 50 percent for food folate” “When consumed under fasting conditions, supplements of folic acid are nearly 100 percent bioavailable (Gregory, 1997). Daly and coworkers (1997) reported incremental increases in erythrocyte folate in response to graded doses of folic acid, which provides evidence for the high bioavailability of supplemental folate.” So even IF synthetic vitamins were less absorbable it doesn’t mean they are bad for you. Of course it doesn’t mean relying on supplements in lieu of a good dietJ I am pretty sure no one is going to be relying on vegemite for their vitamin intake. Although in saying that certain groups of people (alcoholics) and people with very poor diets this may be a valuable source of vitamins for them. Malt extract-from barley Malt is germinated cereal grains that have been dried in a process known as "malting". The grains are made to germinate by soaking in water, and are then halted from germinating further by drying with hot air. Not much to report here. Does contain gluten.  http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v20je11.htm
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-11-783_en.htm?locale=en http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2689836 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114322/ http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Thiamin-HealthProfessional/#en11 http://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/KCHLORIDE.pdf http://ei.cornell.edu/teacher/pdf/ATR/ATR_Chapter1_X.pdf http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v61/n3/full/1602526a.html http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/documents/MSG%20Technical%20Report.pdf https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/n35.pdf 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
Insulin Index 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf "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. Satiety Index 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% croissant 47% for more info http://www.uspotatoes.com/downloads/Satiety%20Index--APRE%20News%20Reference.pdf Fibre 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:) http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/59/5/1203S.long 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!.  oats with yoghurt and berries THE BOTTOM LINE IS BOTH ARE VERY NUTRITIOUS FOODS!
|
DinielleJust some random thought as I get inspired to write it! Archives
September 2015
Categories |
RSS Feed