The fight is on over sugar

ScientistIt is difficult even for experienced scientists to agree on the interpretation of their findings. Add to that external research funding linked to commercial interests and it is even more difficult to know what to believe.

A case in point. If you thought excessive sugar intake is the root of the evil obesity epidemic you might have to think again.

Or not….

Sugar advice questioned

There has been a scathing attack on global health advice to eat less sugar. Through industry proxies, a scientific review now claims that warnings to cut sugar are based on weak evidence and cannot be trusted.

The review identified 9 guidelines that offered 12 recommendations, all indicating a suggested decrease in the consumption of foods containing nonintrinsic sugars (that is added sugar to you and me). The recommendations were based on various health concerns, including nutrient displacement, dental caries, and weight gain. However, the reviewers claimed that no guideline met criteria for trustworthy recommendations and were all based on low-quality evidence.

The review was paid for by the International Life Sciences Institute, a scientific group funded by multinational food and agrochemical companies.

Tainted from the beginning. When will industry ever learn.

The review findings immediately questioned

Predictably, the review quickly received sharp criticism from public health experts. It was but the latest effort of the food industry to influence global nutrition advice by supporting prominent academics questioning the role of sugary food and beverages in causing obesity and other health problems.

The review was seen as an attempt to undermine sugar guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO) to consume fewer products with added sugar, such as soft drinks, candy and sweetened cereals. It is a classic example of how industry funding is used to influence opinion.

To be fair to the review team, they wanted their results to be used to promote improvement in the development of trustworthy guidelines on sugar intake. They also emphasised that the review findings should not be used to justify higher intake of sugary foods and beverages.

Still, nutrition experts say that the review team ignored the hundreds of randomised controlled trials that have documented the harms of sugar. There are strong scientific evidence that sugar contribute to adverse health conditions like weight gain and Type 2 diabetes. The view is that the review team ignored the real data, created false scores, and somehow got through a peer review system difficult to understand from a reputable journal like Annals of Internal Medicine.

The WHO contrary point of view

soda

So until we have the general scientific opinion swinging over to supporting sugar, it is clearly best to stick to the WHO recommendations.

A WHO guideline of 2015 recommends that adults and children reduce their daily intake of free sugars to less than 10% of their total energy intake. WHO also believes that a further reduction to below 5% or roughly 25 grams (6 teaspoons) per day would provide additional health benefits.

Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates. But the guideline does not refer to the sugars in fresh fruits and vegetables, and sugars naturally present in milk.

Contrary to the above review findings, WHO states that they have solid evidence that keeping intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake reduces the risk of overweight, obesity and tooth decay. Based on the quality of supporting evidence, these recommendations are ranked by WHO as “strong”.

So there you have it. And if you embark on reducing your sugar intake remember that much of the sugars consumed today are “hidden” in processed foods that are not usually seen as sweets.

Additive ruling on nitrate and nitrites

sausages2IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) is sometimes very quick to nominate any chemical as at least a probable carcinogen. And so it is with nitrate and nitrite. Pointing to the endogenous nitrogen cycle in humans (that is ingested nitrate recirculated in saliva and converted to nitrite by microorganisms in the mouth and swallowed) IARC concluded that both nitrate and nitrite are probable human carcinogens as they can generate carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds under acidic gastric conditions.

Now let’s make it clear, EFSA in two recently published opinions on nitrate and nitrite partially supported the IARC conclusions on the link between nitrates and nitrites in processed meat and an increased risk of colorectal cancer. But, and this is a big BUT….

Both additives are considered safe to use at current approved levels without any concerns. So why is that?

Nitrate and nitrite cleared as additive at current levels

EFSA, in contrast to IARC, not only looks at the potential for a substance to cause cancer, but also the exposure level necessary. That is practical life conditions. And concluded that existing safe levels for nitrates and nitrites intentionally added to meat and other foods are sufficiently protective for consumers.

Case closed? Well, not so fast. Let’s look at some of the detail.

EFSA’s Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food said that there is some evidence in epidemiological studies of a link between dietary nitrite, preformed N-nitroso compounds and gastric cancers and also for the combination of nitrate plus nitrite from processed meat and colorectal cancers. However, they stressed that this included only very limited evidence.

Using refined exposure assessment scenarios, the Panel calculated that exposure to nitrites as a food additive accounts for 17% of total exposure to nitrite and exposure to nitrates as a food additive only accounts for up to 5% of total exposure to nitrates. Other sources making up the balance of exposure include their natural presence in other food products and environmental contamination.

The main contributors to exposure are vegetables and vegetable-based foods, such as starchy roots, leafy vegetables, such as spinach and lettuce, and prepared salads. Nitrates also contaminate water as a result of intensive farming, fertilisers and sewage discharge.

The remaining problem

rucola

Although the use of nitrate and nitrite as additives have little influence on overall exposure, there is still a remaining overall concern.

If all sources of dietary nitrate are considered, such as food additive use, natural presence in food and environmental contaminants, the Acceptable Daily Intake may be exceeded for individuals of all age groups with medium to high exposure.

If all sources of dietary nitrite are considered, the Acceptable Daily Intake may be exceeded for infants, toddlers and children with average exposure, and for highly exposed individuals of all age groups.

However, the estimated formation in the body of N-nitroso compounds from nitrites added to food items at the approved level were far below those that could be considered to be of risk to human health.

To further reduce uncertainties, the Panel made several recommendations, including:

  • additional studies to measure the excretion of nitrate into human saliva, its conversion to nitrites, and the resulting methaemoglobin formation (a potential problem in babies);
  • further studies on the levels of N-nitroso compounds formed in different meat products based on known amounts of added nitrites/nitrates;
  • large-scale epidemiological studies on nitrite, nitrate and nitrosamine intake and risk of certain cancer types.

In the meantime an Acceptable Daily Intake of 0.07 mg/kg body weight for nitrite and 3.7 mg/kg body weight for nitrate as food additives would be of no concern as most people would not exceed it through eating food to which the additives had been added and only some children would slightly exceed nitrite additive exposure.

Surprising details about salt

water2We recently published a blog abut the health impact of high salt intake. We told you that the body relies on sodium from salt for a variety of functions, including blood pressure and the transmission of nerve impulses. And that it is important that the sodium level in blood is carefully maintained.

But there is more.

The conventional wisdom has long been that if you eat a lot of salt you will become thirsty and drink water, diluting your blood enough to maintain the proper concentration of sodium. Ultimately, you will get rid of the excess salt and water through urine. One way of increasing urine production is to increase blood pressure – the negative health impact of too much salt in the diet.

Sounds simple enough, but some of this may be very wrong.

Surprising findings

Two new studies have put part of this simple theory on its head. In long-term studies of simulated space travel the participants were given a well controlled diet with either 6, 9 or 12 g of salt per day. Eating more salt actually made the participants less thirsty, but somehow hungrier despite the amount of food being exactly the same.

Instead of drinking more, the participants were drinking less when getting more salt. But still increased urine production to get rid of the excess sodium. So where was the excreted fluid coming from? Well, the only explanation available would be that the fluid had been generated from existing body constituents.

How bizarre!

To get to the bottom of the findings the scientists repeated the experiments on mice and found that they burned more calories when they got more salt in the diet. Since they had unlimited access to food – in contrast to the humans above – they ate 25% more just to maintain their weight.

The animals were getting water – but not by drinking it. Instead an increased level of glucocorticoid hormones helped break down fat and muscle in their own bodies. This freed up water for the body to use. However, this process requires energy, thus the mice ate more food.

We already know that a starving body can burn its own fat and muscle for survival. That something similar happens on a salty diet was a surprise. But this is what camels do to create water from the fat in their humps when travelling through deserts with no water.

No, it’s no dieting solution

dieting_(fantasyhealthball)

So could this be a new weight loss fad? To eat more salty foods as salt seems to be involved in weight loss. In contrast to the previous opinion that a high-salt diet encourages a greater intake of fluids, which increases weight.

No, the advice is not to increase salt intake for three reasons:

  • Firstly, more salt in the diet will make you hungrier and you will eat more unless you have a very strong resolve. This would defeat the purpose of the dieting.
  • Secondly, the resulting high glucocorticoid levels are known to cause osteoporosis, muscle loss, diabetes and other metabolic problems.
  • And finally, the increased blood pressure due to the high salt intake can cause heart disease and premature death.

So it is a no brainer to still reduce salt intake. But at least now you know more about what happens when you eat too much salt.

Disappointing news – or not – about moderate drinking

heart

Many studies and reviews have supported the notion that moderate alcohol consumption is beneficial for heart health. Why not have a daily glass or two of wine at dinner, as it could ward off disease. And now they come and spoil the fun.

A joint group of Canadian, Australian and US scientists took a hard look at the evidence presented in previously published research and found little support for a heart protective effect of moderate alcohol consumption.

And here you are believing the previously good news, who can you really trust? But not all is lost so read on.

So what did they find?

The new assessment initially agreed with the previous findings as a fully adjusted pooled analysis of all the 45 studies reviewed found significantly reduced coronary heart disease mortality for current moderate drinkers, actually for all current drinkers.  So all good now, can I continue to have a glass or two of wine to dinner and feel healthier?

Unfortunately not, as the researchers found confounding factors in that they could see an influence of age, gender, ethnicity, and heart health at baseline. When correcting for such factors they claim that moderate consumption of alcohol was not significantly protective for people at ages 55 years or younger at baseline, or for studies controlled for heart health at the beginning of the study. They even claimed that the appearance of cardio-protection among older people may reflect systematic selection biases that accumulate over the life course.

Their hypothesis is that non-drinkers may, in fact, be former drinkers who quit or cut down for health reasons. So, of course the remaining healthy drinkers will fair better than their poor abstainers that are already sick. And the seniors who are healthy may be more likely to keep enjoying that glass of wine with dinner thus biasing the results.

However, the researchers stop short of turning the previous findings on its head. They only conclude that there remain grounds for skepticism about the hypothesis that alcohol use can be cardio-protective, and recommend that future prospective studies not only avoid biased abstainer reference groups, but also take steps to minimize other forms of selection bias across the life course, including that from competing disease risks.

So there is still hope?

red_wine_(boo_licious)Yes, there is still hope that a daily glass of wine might keep you healthy longer as the researchers can’t prove it one way or the other. Only that there are grounds for a healthy skepticism as there remain plausible alternative explanations for their observed review findings.

So let’s make it clear. For now, no one is saying that people who enjoy alcohol in moderation should stop. Should there be no direct benefits, at least the risks of low-level drinking would be small.

Let’s drink to that, but only in moderation!

Salt satisfaction

salt2Sodium serves a vital purpose in the human body as it helps nerves and muscles to function correctly, and it is an important compound involved in maintaining fluid balance. Most of our dietary sodium intake is provided through the consumption of sodium chloride (common or table salt). About 80 per cent of this would come from processed foods and 20 per cent from salt used at the table or in home cooking. Table salt is made up of just under 40 per cent sodium by weight, so a 6 g serving (1 teaspoon) contains about 2,400 mg of sodium (note that some of the calculations below use the more exact 39 per cent of sodium).

Apart from table salt, it has been estimated that a further ten per cent of dietary sodium intake would be provided from naturally occurring sodium or sodium-containing food additives.

So far so good, but unfortunately high intakes of sodium can increase blood pressure, and high blood pressure can increase the risk of developing heart and kidney problems. To limit the negative effects of consuming too much sodium the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that daily sodium intake should not exceed 2,000 mg (equivalent to 5 g of salt).

Initial reassuring results for the Australian population

Estimates of salt intake is most often made using a 24 h diet recall methodology. Using this method, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) in 2008 estimated that daily intake of salt across all Australians was 5.5 g. This amount of salt would deliver an average of around 2,150 mg sodium per day. Taking into account non-salt sources of sodium and salt added by the consumer, FSANZ assumed a probable daily sodium intake of around 2,500 mg. Even if small reductions in sodium intake can lead to big health benefits, this was considered to be close enough to the WHO recommendations. However, because this is an average, there would be a lot of Australians who eat more than this and more than the recommended maximum intakes.

A repeat diet recall survey to update the estimate of mean daily salt intake was performed in 2011-12 through the Australian Health Survey (AHS) with slightly higher results at 6.2 g for the Australian population, equivalent to 2,404 mg of sodium. In this case the amount included sodium naturally present in foods as well as sodium added during processing, but excluded the discretionary salt added by consumers in home prepared foods or at the table. Adjusting for the latter might indicate a daily sodium intake of 2,600 mg per person, which is still only marginally higher than the WHO’s recommended maximum of 2,000 mg and therefore little cause for alarm.

But now for the bad news.

eat-less-saltNow new research shows that the dietary recall method used by the AHS and others likely substantially underestimate mean population salt consumption. The researchers suggested that Australians are consuming 50 per cent more salt than what was previously thought.

Researchers at George Institute for Global Health analysed the salt intake of 419 residents of Lithgow in NSW using two methodologies – the previous 24 h diet recall questionnaire but also 24 h urine samples. Based on the diet recall method, which was used by AHS, the average Lithgow resident consumed 6.8 g a day when including discretionary use. But based on 24 h urine collections, the researchers were able to conclude that the average was actually 9.0 g per day, equivalent to 3,545 mg of sodium. Correcting for salt lost through non-urinary excretion, the average was adjusted to 9.9 g per day or 3,900 mg of sodium.  This is almost double the WHO’s target for daily salt and sodium intake and suggests a several folds greater disease burden attributable to excess salt consumption in Australia.

The lesson

This is but one example of the challenges involved in estimating food intake. The 24 h recall method is considered superior to the food frequency questionnaire method so often used in epidemiological surveys. Still it showed a considerable bias. Again I suggest that epidemiological correlations between food intake and disease should be taken with a grain of salt (pun intended).

New liquorice warnings

liquorice_candy_(US_Government)

Liquorice is a popular sweetener found in many soft drinks, food products, snacks and herbal medicines. It has a rich history as an old remedy that was used by ancient Egyptians and Assyrians made into a sweet liquid drink. There is a traditional belief that liquorice is a healthy natural substance without side effects driving its liberal consumption that can occasionally be hazardous.

If you have followed this blog for a while you might remember that we have covered the good and the bad of liquorice before. Now we also cover the ugly.

The good

Liquorice is extracted from the roots of the plant Glycyrrhiza glabra, a member of the pea family. Most liquorice roots are wild-harvested with collection occurring mainly in Central Asia (Iran, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and China). Liquorice extract is produced by boiling liquorice root and subsequently evaporating most of the water. Large-scale extraction is limited to China and Iran. Glycyrrhizin, that is 50 times sweeter than sugar, is the main active component in liquorice extract and apart from sweetness also provides the desirable liquorice flavour. Moderate consumption of liquorice is associated with several health benefits in that it can quickly soothe sore throats and coughs among some other positive effects.

The bad

Unfortunately, it has long been known that excessive and prolonged consumption of glycyrrhizin intensifies the effects of the stress hormone cortisol by inhibiting the enzyme that inactivates cortisol and may interfere with the sodium and potassium balance. High levels may increase hypertension. Thus, it has been suggested to limit consumption of glycyrrhizin to 100 mg per day, the approximate amount found in 60–70 g of liquorice candy. However, it is not that easy to estimate intake of glycyrrhizin as various forms of candies, beverages, supplements and extracts contain very different amounts of the active components.

The ugly

Pregnant womenRecently new warnings were issued by the Finnish National Institute for Health and Welfare to women to avoid consuming large amounts of liquorice during pregnancy as it can have long-term harmful effects on the development of the foetus. A new Finnish study had shown that youths previously exposed to large amounts of liquorice in the womb performed less well than others in cognitive reasoning tests carried out by a psychologist. The difference was equivalent to approximately seven IQ points.

Those exposed to liquorice also performed less well in tasks measuring memory capacity, and according to parental estimates, they had more ADHD-type problems than others. With girls, puberty had started earlier and advanced further.

In this study a large amount was defined as daily consumption of more than 70 mg and compared to consumption of less than 35 mg glycyrrhizin.

The lesson

Although cortisol is essential to the development of a foetus, large increases initiated by excessive consumption of liquorice can be detrimental.

Ignoring responsibility at your peril

oil_(Illuminati Owl)

Oils aren’t always what they say (Photo: Illuminati Owl)

The agri-food industry is no innocent bystander. Maximising sales and profit is more important than looking after their customers. They cleverly invent crops tolerant to their own herbicides through genetic engineering so they can sell both seeds and encourage the spread of questionable poisons. They add sugar to many of their products for children so that people will crave sweet foods throughout life. They cheat on extra virgin oil because they can and reap the profit. They replace beef in processed beef products with cheaper horse meat to gain an upper hand. The lists goes on and on.

And rightly the public is upset. This is reflected by the many news items published by the popular press condemning the latest cheat by industry.

But what about consumer responsibility?

Acrylamide is a good example as it is formed during heating of food as we have previously pointed out. Evidence from animal studies have shown that acrylamide and its metabolite glycidamide are genotoxic and carcinogenic: they damage DNA and cause cancer. While evidence from human studies on the impact of acrylamide in the diet is inconclusive, scientists agree that acrylamide in food has the potential to cause cancer in humans as well and it would be prudent to reduce exposure.

toaster_(Donovan_Govan)

Go easy with the toaster (Photo: DonoVan Govan)

Thus, in early 2017, the UK Food Standards Agency issued consumer recommendations on how to minimise the formation of acrylamide during home cooking by avoiding singeing their toast or leaving roast potatoes to char in the oven.

Acrylamide is a natural by-product of heating and has been present in our food since fire started to be used for food preparation. It is formed by a reaction between amino acids and sugars when foods are heated at high temperatures (over 120°C) during frying, roasting or baking. It can thus be found in a wide range of foods including roasted potatoes and root vegetables, chips, crisps, toast, cakes, biscuits, cereals and coffee.

The formation of acrylamide can be reduced by some simple measures as pointed out by the Food Standards Agency. Aim for a golden yellow colour or lighter when frying, baking, toasting or roasting starchy foods like potatoes, root vegetables and bread. Carefully follow cooking instructions on the pack when frying or oven-cooking packaged food products such as chips, roast potatoes and parsnips. Don’t store raw potatoes in the fridge as it may lead to the formation of more free sugars in the potatoes that can increase overall acrylamide levels.

Parts of the popular press objected

All sensible and practical recommendations. You would have thought that the popular press would support such a consumer initiative. But you would be wrong. Rather, parts of the press attacked the Food Standards Agency for being alarmist. Critics of the advice were quick to point out that animal studies linking acrylamide to cancer have used doses far above the average daily consumption in humans so that extrapolating the results is questionable – even assuming the effect is comparable across species.

DNA

Acrylamide is a genotoxic carcinogen.

But genotoxic carcinogens don’t follow the minimum threshold concentration rule below which they are not dangerous at all. With chemicals that damage DNA it’s a linear dose response, so even the smallest dose contributes to the risk. There is no threshold dose for the effect. And to add to the problem it is almost impossible to prove in epidemiological studies that acrylamide is a human carcinogen as its presence is too common to find a group that is not exposed at all.

Therefore, the united verdict of organisations like the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organisation, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and UK scientific advisory committees is that acrylamide has the potential to cause human cancer by interacting with the genetic material in cells. In 2015, EFSA published their risk assessment of acrylamide in food confirming that acrylamide levels found in food potentially increases the risk of cancer for all age groups. This means that acrylamide might contribute to our lifetime risk of developing cancer; although it is not possible to estimate how big this contribution may be.

Time for action

With that united front I suggest that you better follow the recommendations issued by the UK Food Standards Agency. I know that you feel safer when driving your own car compared to flying, although the probability of an accident is much higher on the road. I know that it is so much easier to blame the food industry for all ills, rather than take some responsibility for your own food handling.

Maybe it’s time for some action!

I’d love to believe

1024x1024 mobile phone wallpapers download - www.wallpaper-mobile.com

Red wine benefits?

I’d love to believe that the resveratrol in red wine possesses a range of health benefits including anti-cancer effects, anti-inflammatory effects, cardiovascular benefits, anti-diabetes potential and protection against Alzheimer’s. Thus good for all adult ages. A glass of wine a day might keep the doctor away.

But it might be wishful thinking. It is true that resveratrol can inhibit growth of cancer cells in a culture and in some animal models, but it is not known whether it can prevent cancer in humans. It has increased the lifespans of yeast, worms, fruit flies, fish, and mice fed a high-calorie diet, but again this has not been shown in humans. So the brutal truth is probably that the amount of resveratrol in red wine is too small to have any measurable beneficial effects in humans.

But we can still believe!

whiskybottle

Whisky benefits?

I’d love to believe that the ellagic acid content of whisky actually can reduce oxidative stress. Ellagic acid has been shown to have antiproliferative and antioxidant properties in a number of in vitro and small-animal models. It may directly inhibit the DNA binding of certain carcinogens, and it has a chemoprotective effect in cellular models.

But again it might be too good to be true. Ellagic acid has been marketed as a dietary supplement with a range of claimed benefits against cancer, heart disease, and other medical problems. In 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration called it a fake cancer ‘cure’ consumers should avoid. So not much luck there.

But we can still believe!

It might actually be premature to give up red wine and whisky completely. As antioxidants, like resveratrol and ellagic acid, are additive any contribution is useful. Complement the spirits with plenty of berries, dark green vegetables and nuts and you will not go wrong. Red wine and whisky will be outdone on the health front, but so what.

But there is more…

chilipeppers

Red chilli pepper benefits?

I’d also very much love to believe the latest reports that consumption of hot red chilli peppers can reduce deaths due to heart disease or stroke. Going back for centuries, peppers and spices have been thought to be beneficial in the treatment of many diseases. A new study using National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) III data collected from more than 16,000 Americans who were followed for up to 23 years, found that hot red chilli pepper consumption decreased mortality by 13%.

But unfortunately the findings, widely published by the popular press, are based solely on epidemiological data. Exploring epidemiological data, even if prospective in nature, is fraught with obstacles. The authors themselves point out that given the observational nature of the investigation, causality can only be suggested, not confirmed.

However, on the bright side there is some support for the findings in a theory that capsaicin in chilli peppers can influence cellular and molecular mechanisms that prevent obesity and modulate coronary blood flow, and also possesses antimicrobial properties that may alter the gut microbiota.

In a sign of our desperate need to find some beneficial news the popular press was inundated by citations of the positive findings. Some examples:

  • “Can eating spicy food lead to a longer life? Chili peppers could be the secret” says National Post.
  • “Spicy food could be the secret to a healthy heart and a longer life, says new study” says The Telegraph.
  • “This Is Your Body On Spicy Foods” says The Huffington Post.
  • “Eat Peppers, Live Longer?” says New York Times.
  • “Red hot chilli peppers: the way to a longer life?” says The Sydney Morning Herald.

If you’re on to a good thing the press will pick it up. Doesn’t mean it’s true though. But we can still believe!

Magical dietary fibres

hamburger_(Tony_Evans)

Dietary fibre can influence appetite (Photo: Tony Evans).

We have all heard the “eat more fibre” mantra and wondered what this is all about. So did scientists. Sure we have long known it is good for gut health and function. Recently with the exploration of the gut microbes – the microbiota – we have learnt that dietary fibre can support survival and growth of the good bugs. That we have written about before.

Now scientists have found another piece of the puzzle. Some of the fermentation products produced by the gut microbes from the dietary fibre that our own enzymes cannot digest have the potential to influence our appetite. That is incredible and provides a further insight into the obesity conundrum.

The new mechanism

Obesity is currently one of the most serious global threats to human health. Susceptibility to obesity is determined by genetic background, diet, and lifestyle. Now it has become apparent that the resident intestinal microbes in the large intestine also play an important role.  During the process of microbial fermentation of non-digestible fibre, the short-chain fatty acids acetate, propionate and butyrate are formed.

While short-chain fatty acids can serve as an energy source, the scientists showed that they also act as signaling molecules for the free fatty acid receptor 2 (FFAR2) found in enteroendocrine L cells in the large intestine. These specialised gut cells secrete the appetite suppressing hormone peptide YY (PYY). FFAR2 signaling was found to drive an expansion of the PYY cell population within the large intestine, leading to increased circulating PYY. This is associated with a reduction in food intake and protection against diet-induced obesity.

Evidence points to the production of short-chain fatty acids by the gut microbiota as an important appetite regulatory signal.

So what are fibres?

almonds

Almonds are good sources of dietary fibre.

Just to be clear, dietary fibre is the indigestible portion of food derived from plants. Chemically, dietary fibre consists of non-starch polysaccharides such as arabinoxylans, cellulose, and many other plant components such as resistant starch, resistant dextrins, inulin, lignin, chitins, pectins, beta-glucans, and oligosaccharides. Food sources of dietary fibre are often divided according to whether they provide predominantly soluble or insoluble fibre.

Soluble fibre is found in varying quantities in all plant foods, including in a range of legumes, in oats, rye, chia, and barley, in several fruits, in vegetables, in root tubers and in nuts, with almonds being the highest in dietary fibre.

Sources of insoluble fiber include whole grain foods, wheat and corn bran, legumes such as beans and peas, nuts and seeds and vegetables such as green beans, cauliflower, zucchini and celery.

So there you have a wide variety of healthy foods with the potential of reducing your hunger pangs and alleviate the risk of overweight and obesity.

Rosemary benefits – believe it if you must

diet_(Christina_Roervik

Benefits of a balanced diet.

I might be a bit repetitive here, but allow me to be clear at the beginning of this blog. There are no magic individual foods.

Sure there are good and bad foods that might tilt your habitual diet towards being more beneficial or detrimental to health. But it is the overall balance that is most important for a healthy life.

With that caveat in mind, we are going to look at purported health effects of rosemary, a perennial woody herb.

The ageing population of Acciaroli

There’s a little village in Italy called Acciaroli that has been doing the rounds in the international press during 2016. The reason: an unusual number of the small southern Italian township’s population is over the age of 100. And they have the micro-circulation of significantly younger people. These are the small blood vessels that send nutrients to the brain and organs and pull out metabolic waste products, but which tend to deteriorate with age.

Could it be something about the air, the ocean, the mountains, the hills, the olive and berry trees?

Or maybe the food. Scientists found that at every meal they’re eating anchovies, and they eat them fried and greasy. Typically, that will be washed down with a glass or two of wine. Greasy anchovies and wine – maybe a little far fetched for supporting a long life.

What about rosemary? Well, research recently released showed the almost daily consumption of rosemary by the Acciaroli population – infused in the local olive oil, cooked in pasta dishes and chewed raw. And this habit has been linked to improved micro-circulation and a concomitant effect on longevity.

The benefits of rosemary

rosemary

Potential health impact of rosemary consumption.

The first benefit – rosemary tastes great. Italian cooking uses rosemary in abundance. It’s an easy and reliable herb to grow. A light prune once a year will keep the rosemary bush in shape. One plant will provide more than enough for regular use. It works in both savoury and sweet meals. Rosemary, along with roughly chopped garlic, onion, carrots and celery sautéed in olive oil and cooked, forms ‘soffrito’ – the basis for many different stocks, soups, sauces and other dishes.  It can also be used in desserts, like a panna cotta, with some grappa.

The second benefit – rosemary contains a number of phytochemicals, including rosmarinic acid, camphor, caffeic acid, ursolic acid, betulinic acid, and the antioxidants carnosic acid and carnosol. A lot to take in, but let’s focus on rosmarinic acid. Research has shown that it has a number of interesting biological activities, e.g. antiviral, antibacterial, antiinflammatory and antioxidant. The presence of rosmarinic acid in medicinal plants, herbs and spices has beneficial and health promoting effects. In plants, rosmarinic acid is supposed to act as a preformed constitutively accumulated defence compound. If you don’t like rosemary, rosmarinic acid can also be found in many other culinary herbs such as basil, lemon balm, marjoram, sage, thyme and peppermint.

The third benefit – it is also a good source of iron, calcium, and vitamin B6. Although as a herb it is consumed in such small amounts that this might not be important enough to influence health.

No harm done

Convinced yet? Maybe not and the researchers also kept an open mind. Further studies are underway to further explore the findings. But in the meantime there’s certainly no harm in increasing your consumption and use of rosemary or related herbs.