Eating Healthy Options

[Hartmann]

I just finished "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan. He basically rips apart the idea of "nutrionism" pointing out that things like omega-3 pills are nowhere close to as good for you as just eating fish. How beta-carotene pills that were touted to prevent cancer actually cause it.

His whole point is that if we eat food we should eat mostly plants and not too much. He cites the French, the Italians, the Japanese and how their diets are completely different from each other but they're still healthier than us.

[Spectatrix]

I just finished "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan. He basically rips apart the idea of "nutrionism" pointing out that things like omega-3 pills are nowhere close to as good for you as just eating fish. How beta-carotene pills that were touted to prevent cancer actually cause it.

His whole point is that if we eat food we should eat mostly plants and not too much. He cites the French, the Italians, the Japanese and how their diets are completely different from each other but they're still healthier than us.

I read that last year. I actually felt compelled to write a review of it on Amazon:

I have some mixed feelings about this book. The first section, "The Age of Nutritionism", is very strong and contains a fairly detailed history and critique of nutritional advice, in particular how it has developed since World War II. Even in my short lifetime, I have noticed the demonization of fat give way to the current demonization of carbs, not to mention near-daily nutritional analysis updates on omega-3s, antioxidants, trans fats, etc. -- all of which I found a bit suspect. So I found this section of the book quite interesting, learning some of the history behind these nutritional fads I'd already observed.

The second and third sections of the book were also fairly good, though I have reservations about some of his advice. After lambasting nutritional scientists for "reductionist science", i.e. concentrating on the positive and deleterious effects of individual nutrients on health rather than the effects of whole foods, he goes off on a tangent lamenting the lack of omega-3 fatty acids in the Western diet. He is acutely aware of this gaffe, as he briefly addresses it and others in the intro to the last third of the book, but gives little explanation as to why he concentrates on a single class of nutrients like this, after complaining about the same kind of thinking! Granted, the prevalence of fish in all (or nearly all) primitive diets lends credence to the assumption that various nutrients in fish are beneficial to the human diet, but it seems a bit absurd to concentrate just on omega-3s rather than the whole fish.

That would be my only major complaint about the book, though I do have a few minor nit-picks here and there as well. Overall, though, I think the dietary advice herein is both sound and simple. Eat fresh fruits, vegetables, and meat. Get involved with a shorter food chain (e.g. farmer's markets or CSA) when you can, and be cautious about your consumption of overly processed foods, though I would add that the occasional indulgence is probably not all that detrimental to your health.

[Spectatrix]

Currently reading "The Atheist's Way". It's decent, though not quite what I expected when I picked it up. It's fairly generic motivational writing, trussed up in godlessness. While I'm not getting a whole heck of a lot out of it, I'm probably going to lend it to a friend of mine who is frequently in the thrall of some new life/faith crisis. I don't expect her to convert to atheism or anything, but she might get some grounding out of it.

[impala454]

Nice review Christine... Good to see people writing meaningful reviews rather than the regular one liners... "Good book" "Highly recommend", etc. I need to start reading again... got tons of books collecting dust I always meant to read.

[Hartmann]

I read that last year. I actually felt compelled to write a review of it on Amazon:

Great review!

I think his ideas are great in theory but not completely practical across all fronts.

The idea that balancing a diet and eating smaller portions does wonders for the body sits well with me. His bringing up of the omega-3s did strike me as odd at first, but his logic for us needing them makes sense.

The advice the book gives is easy to implement, but we already eat that way, so I think we'll focus more on the buying local part. My wife finished it last night and liked it. We both agree that this whole idea that some "miracle" cure for life's ills are hilarious, this book really pointed them out.

[Spectatrix]

I think most nutritional fads are unintentionally hilarious, so I enjoyed it for that. I already tend to eat fresh fruit/veggies/meat over hyper-processed stuff, so this book didn't really change my eating habits. Have you read The Omnivore's Dilemma? It's his other major book, but I haven't grabbed it.

[impala454]

I don't really understand the perceived benefits of a non-processed vs processed food food, other than maybe the taste. If you take two foods that are nutritionally identical, but one has been "processed" and maybe has a few extra preservatives or something, I don't see how you'd digest it any differently. I recall reading several years ago (and even now) about how nitrates/nitrites/etc in processed meat were seen as some terrible thing and causes of all these problems, but when you research it yourself it's hard to find anything that gives a definitive answer. Certainly no hard evidence to support the claim. Same with every other food fad out there... like how in the 90s eggs were the devil, heart killing, cholesterol monster. Now they're seen more as a health food. Pretty dumb if you ask me. Eating a well rounded diet is a no brainer. You don't need a book to tell you that.

[Spectatrix]

I think the main downside to processed foods is all the extra sugar & salt that's typically added. Plus there's usually nutrient loss from high heat cooking/canning and sitting on a shelf for weeks/months. It's certainly not as simple as processed = bad, unprocessed = good, but I think you have to pay a lot of attention to the nutritional labels on packaged food.

[impala454]

Eh I don't see how sitting on a shelf in a can or freezer subtracts from nutrition. And you also can lose quite a bit of nutrition from fresh foods at home via cooking, depending on how you prepare it. Sugar & salt added may or may not be significant, as you said, just read the labels. I.e. if I go buy some chunked chicken canned with water, and compare it against an equal amount of chicken that I just sliced off of a bird that was alive 10 minutes ago, is there any real nutritional difference? Of course there is a taste difference, as well as a convenience difference.

[Spectatrix]

Like I said, the main "danger" of processed foods is added salt, sugar, and possibly inflated calories. Sometimes "processed" doesn't make a lick of difference, e.g. canned or frozen veggies vs. fresh (well, canned usually has a ton of salt). Sometimes it's downright scary, like bread that has dozens (hundreds?) of ingredients.

[impala454]

Well like I said, you look at at the label. It just seems silly to say "oooh thats in a can or a box or freezer, I can't buy that because it might have more salt".

Do you ever look up those ingredients and find out what they are? Or just go "ewww I can't pronounce that word so this bread must be evil I'll go buy the 3x more expensive bread because it says "organic""? I've found that a lot of times if it has a few of those, if you look it up it's really harmless stuff that they just don't have a friendly name for.

Don't get me wrong, I love to cook and I love to use fresh foods to cook with, but I just don't buy into all this new hype about some pack of lunch meat or a can of beans being "dangerous". There's a difference between not liking the taste and thinking there's a major nutritional difference.

[Hartmann]

I think the main downside to processed foods is all the extra sugar & salt that's typically added. Plus there's usually nutrient loss from high heat cooking/canning and sitting on a shelf for weeks/months. It's certainly not as simple as processed = bad, unprocessed = good, but I think you have to pay a lot of attention to the nutritional labels on packaged food.

That's pretty much my thought.

I saw a commercial last night for a white spaghetti pasta with "Added Vitamins and Nutrients" specifically marketed to moms who wanted their kids to be healthy. Sorry, that doesn't jive with me. White flour turns to sugar in the body, and rather than feeding the kid some vegetables, the mom buys noodles that claim to have vitamins.

I am not advocating going out and buying all organic, I don't buy a lot of it myself. The best advice in the book is to shop the outside of stores rather than the interior aisles. The good stuff is on the outside and most of the "bad" stuff is in the interior. I dunno, it just makes sense to me to eat more vegetables and fruits. A lot people don't like the taste of that stuff because they're used to the sugar we get from breads.

And no, Spectatrix, I have not read his other book, though I will probably pick it up.

[Hartmann]

Well like I said, you look at at the label. It just seems silly to say "oooh thats in a can or a box or freezer, I can't buy that because it might have more salt".

Do you ever look up those ingredients and find out what they are? Or just go "ewww I can't pronounce that word so this bread must be evil I'll go buy the 3x more expensive bread because it says "organic""? I've found that a lot of times if it has a few of those, if you look it up it's really harmless stuff that they just don't have a friendly name for.

Don't get me wrong, I love to cook and I love to use fresh foods to cook with, but I just don't buy into all this new hype about some pack of lunch meat or a can of beans being "dangerous". There's a difference between not liking the taste and thinking there's a major nutritional difference.

I don't think we can get away from canned goods and boxed meals, but there is a nutrional difference. To make a food have a shelf-life, things are pulled out, things that make the food spoil. Oddly enough, those things are usually good for you. To compensate for that, the manufacturers use a chemical equivalent. However, like the guy in the book said, we really don't understand how those chemicals react compared to the original compounds that were taken out.

The example given is beta-carotene. They pull it out of a lot of things and then sell beta-carotene tablets. We know that beta-carotene in carrots is good for us, but in the tablet form, it's been linked to cancer. Why? Well, this guy's theory is that the beta-carotene reacts with something in the carrot, making it beneficial to our bodies.

But again, we can't get away from canned things, especially living in hurricane alley.

[impala454]

So explain to me exactly how a can of carrots with no salt added is different nutritionally than some fresh carrots you brought home and boiled yourself. How exactly do they "remove a compound" from the carrot? Your example is that beta-carotene tablets are bad for you... that's completely irrelevant even if it is true. We're not talking about taking OTC vitamin tablets, we're talking about whether a canned food is "dangerous" or less nutritious than something you're cooking at home.

The only thing I'm getting from you guys is "there's added salt/sugar" or "they add stuff/take away stuff". Give me an example of what you're talking about. You can buy canned/frozen/processed foods which have no salt/sugar added. Not to mention most people tend to add some salt during the cooking process anyways.

It seems to me yall are blaming the process and/or weird chemical names for nutritional differences, even though the nutrition as stated on the label may be identical to the fresh food. Hard to compare, yes, given that fresh foods tend to not have nutrition labels. But if you're going to claim that they're dangerous or different nutriontally in some way, you need to make the direct comparison. To me, the difference is not as obvious as it seems to yall.

edit: and sorry for derailing the thread... prob should split this off

[Hartmann]

So explain to me exactly how a can of carrots with no salt added is different nutritionally than some fresh carrots you brought home and boiled yourself. How exactly do they "remove a compound" from the carrot? Your example is that beta-carotene tablets are bad for you... that's completely irrelevant even if it is true. We're not talking about taking OTC vitamin tablets, we're talking about whether a canned food is "dangerous" or less nutritious than something you're cooking at home.

The only thing I'm getting from you guys is "there's added salt/sugar" or "they add stuff/take away stuff". Give me an example of what you're talking about. You can buy canned/frozen/processed foods which have no salt/sugar added. Not to mention most people tend to add some salt during the cooking process anyways.

It seems to me yall are blaming the process and/or weird chemical names for nutritional differences, even though the nutrition as stated on the label may be identical to the fresh food. Hard to compare, yes, given that fresh foods tend to not have nutrition labels. But if you're going to claim that they're dangerous or different nutriontally in some way, you need to make the direct comparison. To me, the difference is not as obvious as it seems to yall.

edit: and sorry for derailing the thread... prob should split this off

Home canning is great and we do it all the time, the thing is, I haven't been able to find many canned goods that do not have salt and or some sort of fructose. Fructose isn't always spelled out as "fructose" on the label, it can be in the oil they use to preserve the food, technically, the oil's contents do not have to be on the label, just that the oil is used.

I am not saying canned goods are "dangerous", I am saying they are not as good for you as fresh fruits and vegetables, I'm not sure there is any way to argue around that. Canned goods by definition have enzymes and molds (not all mold is bad) removed from them. By removing those things, some vitamin content is usually lost. Even if I do it at home, there is a loss of vitamin content, this is why they tell people that fresh is better than cooked, because cooking changes the chemical makeup of the food.

To compare the nutritional value of canned goods vs. fresh goods is molecular and is something the guy does in the book, you can borrow my copy if you'd like. I'm not a scientist or a nutritionist, I just know from our experience that eating fresh foods has had a positive effect on different aspects of our lives (energy, weight, etc.).

Also, salt isn't necessarily the bad guy, it's actually a necessity, but it's the idea that everything needs salt that is wrong. Adding salt to something adds or brings out flavors, but using it in canning is part of the process. If your diet is canned goods and meat, then you're eating a lot more salt than you should.

My point with the carrots was that we are now selling supplements to make up for our lack of eating healthy foods, yet the supplement has a different chemical composition than the food and may not have the same benefits. It's a dangerous thing to start telling people that OTC supplements are just as good as eating well. What's the point of eating well at all then?

[impala454]

Home canning is great and we do it all the time, the thing is, I haven't been able to find many canned goods that do not have salt and or some sort of fructose. Fructose isn't always spelled out as "fructose" on the label, it can be in the oil they use to preserve the food, technically, the oil's contents do not have to be on the label, just that the oil is used.

That's why you don't buy the canned goods packed in oil or syrup.

I am not saying canned goods are "dangerous", I am saying they are not as good for you as fresh fruits and vegetables, I'm not sure there is any way to argue around that. Canned goods by definition have enzymes and molds (not all mold is bad) removed from them. By removing those things, some vitamin content is usually lost. Even if I do it at home, there is a loss of vitamin content, this is why they tell people that fresh is better than cooked, because cooking changes the chemical makeup of the food.

You're losing me here. What enzymes and molds are removed from canned food (i.e. an ear of corn or something) that pertain to the vitamin content of the food?

I'm not a scientist or a nutritionist, I just know from our experience that eating fresh foods has had a positive effect on different aspects of our lives (energy, weight, etc.).

That's great that it has had a positive effect on different aspects of your lives. It is, however, not some empirical data that supports your claim. In one sentence you're talking about enzymes and chemicals, and in another you're disclaiming your lack of knowledge of the subject and citing anecdotal claims.

Also, salt isn't necessarily the bad guy, it's actually a necessity, but it's the idea that everything needs salt that is wrong. Adding salt to something adds or brings out flavors, but using it in canning is part of the process. If your diet is canned goods and meat, then you're eating a lot more salt than you should.

Again, a 3rd time, you can buy processed foods without added salt. And likewise you typically add salt to fresh foods when you prepare them. The salt is irrelevant. It's the process I'm talking about, not what's added. You guys are demonizing the foods because they're canned, not because of what goes in the can. Sure, if I can a big chunk of bacon in oil and dump a 1/4 cup of salt in it, that'd be bad for me, but not because it's been canned. Likewise, if I can some corn in some water with a pinch of salt that's completely different. But the fact that both of these are canned does not change. You would demonize them both because they're canned.

My point with the carrots was that we are now selling supplements to make up for our lack of eating healthy foods, yet the supplement has a different chemical composition than the food and may not have the same benefits. It's a dangerous thing to start telling people that OTC supplements are just as good as eating well. What's the point of eating well at all then?

I agree with you on the supplements, I think they're a huge waste of money.

[Hartmann]

That's great that it has had a positive effect on different aspects of your lives. It is, however, not some empirical data that supports your claim. In one sentence you're talking about enzymes and chemicals, and in another you're disclaiming your lack of knowledge of the subject and citing anecdotal claims.


Again, a 3rd time, you can buy processed foods without added salt. And likewise you typically add salt to fresh foods when you prepare them. The salt is irrelevant. It's the process I'm talking about, not what's added. You guys are demonizing the foods because they're canned, not because of what goes in the can. Sure, if I can a big chunk of bacon in oil and dump a 1/4 cup of salt in it, that'd be bad for me, but not because it's been canned. Likewise, if I can some corn in some water with a pinch of salt that's completely different. But the fact that both of these are canned does not change. You would demonize them both because they're canned.


I agree with you on the supplements, I think they're a huge waste of money.

Except they're not anecdotal, all of this is cited in the book, so when I get home I'll post links to the papers if I can find them.

To can you heat the food, by definition, you lose nutrients and bad things (bacteria). The only food that I know of that actually gains nutritional value in the canning process is tomatoes because heating them brings the lycopene out of the skins.

I'm not demonizing canned goods, I'm stating that fresh food is nutritionally superior to them. A fresh cucumber has more nutritional value than a pickle (even if there is no salt or anything).

[Spectatrix]

Dude, we're mostly agreeing with you. If you read and understand nutritional labels, processed food can be fine, but if people aren't paying attention, they're usually better off with fresh foods.

The other thing that Hartmann was getting at was foods where they strip nutrients from the raw product (e.g. white flour) and then try to add the vitamins and minerals back in. Enriched white flour is better than unenriched, but wheat flour is better than both since the "enrichment" isn't going to add back everything they stripped out in the first place.

To answer one of your earlier questions, no, I don't freak out about seeing chemical names in ingredient lists, nor do I pay 3x the price for something just because they slapped an "organic" or "natural" label on it. You know damn well that I'm not that dumb.

[Spectatrix]

A fresh cucumber has more nutritional value than a pickle (even if there is no salt or anything).

Actually, that's a pretty bad example. Pickled & fermented foods have their own unique health benefits from the bacteria present. They often produce more B vitamins, for instance.

[Hartmann]

Actually, that's a pretty bad example. Pickled & fermented foods have their own unique health benefits from the bacteria present. They often produce more B vitamins, for instance.

Yeah, bad example. Green peas, that's a better one.

[impala454]

Except they're not anecdotal, all of this is cited in the book, so when I get home I'll post links to the papers if I can find them.

The book tells me that you and your .. (wife?? are you married? forget) feel better?

To can you heat the food, by definition, you lose nutrients and bad things (bacteria). The only food that I know of that actually gains nutritional value in the canning process is tomatoes because heating them brings the lycopene out of the skins.

Hmm... I may be wrong here but I always thought cans were filled, then sealed, then heated. How/where do the nutrients go out of a sealed can?

I'm not demonizing canned goods, I'm stating that fresh food is nutritionally superior to them.

I just don't agree that this is a 100% true statement. Perhaps it's true as a general rule, but I think "nutritionally superior" is a bit of an overstatement. In terms of a percentage of values, what are we really talking about here... 10%? 20%? What would you think? Kind of like saying that Kobe Bryant sucks at basketball because Michael Jordan was way better... (and people do say stupid stuff like that).

Christine I know you're not that dumb, just trying to say, you might be surprised at how insignificant any added "chemicals" are to the nutritional value, vs the value in food preservation they bring. Typically they're the last few items in the list, which means they're in the least amounts. Do yourself a favor and check some of them out. I've done it numerous times and found that, at best, it's usually pretty evenly debated. Certainly never a slam dunk, omg, this chemical will kill us all kind of result.

[Hartmann]

The book tells me that you and your .. (wife?? are you married? forget) feel better?

The book talks about the nutrients and biochemistry of food, which is what you were referring to on the anecdotal statement.

[Hartmann]

Hmm... I may be wrong here but I always thought cans were filled, then sealed, then heated. How/where do the nutrients go out of a sealed can?


I just don't agree that this is a 100% true statement. Perhaps it's true as a general rule, but I think "nutritionally superior" is a bit of an overstatement. In terms of a percentage of values, what are we really talking about here... 10%? 20%? What would you think? Kind of like saying that Kobe Bryant sucks at basketball because Michael Jordan was way better... (and people do say stupid stuff like that).

Christine I know you're not that dumb, just trying to say, you might be surprised at how insignificant any added "chemicals" are to the nutritional value, vs the value in food preservation they bring. Typically they're the last few items in the list, which means they're in the least amounts. Do yourself a favor and check some of them out. I've done it numerous times and found that, at best, it's usually pretty evenly debated. Certainly never a slam dunk, omg, this chemical will kill us all kind of result.

Nutritionally superior would simply mean superior. You're wanting numbers, but even if it's .05% it's still technically superior. I've read reports that say anywhere from 5-20% of vitamin content is lost when canning, so there are some numbers. You've gone from saying we were demonizing canned goods (which we're not) to saying that canned goods are just as good as fresh food, which you've done nothing to prove except claim that "you don't think so".

About the canning process, it really depends on the vegetable/fruit. Some are slightly cooked, then canned, then heated. Nutrients can burn off (our body burns them) or they can sit inside of the can, only to cook off when the person heats them on the stove.

I'll still keep canned goods in my cupboard.

[impala454]

You're wanting numbers, but even if it's .05% it's still technically superior.

That was my whole point. It's silly to call something superior when it doesn't make much difference.

I've read reports that say anywhere from 5-20% of vitamin content is lost when canning, so there are some numbers. You've gone from saying we were demonizing canned goods (which we're not) to saying that canned goods are just as good as fresh food, which you've done nothing to prove except claim that "you don't think so".

Which is no different than what you've been doing, except claiming you've read a report. And I don't think it's the case, because I see no logical reason why scraping some corn off a stalk into a can with some water and sealing it up removes any nutrients. If you're going to heat the shit up at home anyways, what the hell difference does it make?!?

The book talks about the nutrients and biochemistry of food, which is what you were referring to on the anecdotal statement.

The anecdotal statement I was referring to was this statement, which has nothing to do with your book:

I just know from our experience that eating fresh foods has had a positive effect on different aspects of our lives (energy, weight, etc.)

[Hartmann]

That was my whole point. It's silly to call something superior when it doesn't make much difference.

But superior is superior. You're saying that making a 69 on a test is no different than making a 70.

Which is no different than what you've been doing, except claiming you've read a report. And I don't think it's the case, because I see no logical reason why scraping some corn off a stalk into a can with some water and sealing it up removes any nutrients. If you're going to heat the shit up at home anyways, what the hell difference does it make?!?


The anecdotal statement I was referring to was this statement, which has nothing to do with your book:

This whole discussion is based off of the book that Spectatrix and I read. You injected yourself into the conversation stating your disagreement. You could always read the book (you can borrow mine).

Corn is a bad example because it has no real health value. Also, they actually have to cook the corn before putting it in the can (you can't really get it off of the stalk otherwise, unless you want stalk in the can). I think that other part of this that is missing is that we are not just talking about buying fresh vegetables, we are talking about not heating them up or not heating them as much or as long. Temperature does play a role. The more you heat things up, the more the chemcials change (oil is a great example).

Your argument isn't with me, it's with the book and that's fine, but I would think that you would want to at least read it before bashing it.

The anecdotal reference you made must have gone right past my eyes, sorry.

[Hartmann]

Also, last night I went to the grocery store to find canned goods with "no salt added" and there was only one brand at both stores I tried (Kroger and HEB), an organic one and they only had a few vegetables available. Thought that was ironic.

[impala454]

But superior is superior. You're saying that making a 69 on a test is no different than making a 70.

So would you say that Kobe Bryant sucks because Michael Jordan is better? Yall don't understand the problem I have with your statements. You're not just stating that fresh foods are better, you're saying that canned foods are bad for you. This is the problem I have.

This whole discussion is based off of the book that Spectatrix and I read. You injected yourself into the conversation stating your disagreement. You could always read the book (you can borrow mine).

No need to keep offering your book, I have no desire to read it. I don't need to read Obama's book to know that I won't like it either.

Corn is a bad example because it has no real health value.

Uh.. fiber? How on earth can you claim corn has no nutritional value?

Also, they actually have to cook the corn before putting it in the can (you can't really get it off of the stalk otherwise, unless you want stalk in the can). I think that other part of this that is missing is that we are not just talking about buying fresh vegetables, we are talking about not heating them up or not heating them as much or as long. Temperature does play a role. The more you heat things up, the more the chemcials change (oil is a great example).

But you cook them at home. You add salt at home. Throw in a "pinch" of salt while you're cooking... how many milligrams is that? I bet you'd be surprised.

Your argument isn't with me, it's with the book and that's fine, but I would think that you would want to at least read it before bashing it.

I'm not wasting my time reading an entire crappy book just to further a discussion on Techsans...

Also, last night I went to the grocery store to find canned goods with "no salt added" and there was only one brand at both stores I tried (Kroger and HEB), an organic one and they only had a few vegetables available. Thought that was ironic.

I don't think you were looking very hard but ok. See my salt comment above. This is getting stupid if you decided to visit two different grocery stores to further this discussion. You eat what makes you feel good. I still don't buy into what yall are saying, and still have seen no evidence to support your claims other than "they add stuff".

[Hartmann]

So would you say that Kobe Bryant sucks because Michael Jordan is better? Yall don't understand the problem I have with your statements. You're not just stating that fresh foods are better, you're saying that canned foods are bad for you. This is the problem I have.

No, you're comparing apples to oranges. First, we've never said they are bad for you (though the book takes that route), we just stated that canned goods are not as good for you. Second, comparing Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan is subjective because you have a preference. Saying that Kobe Bryant sucks would be an incorrect correlation to what we are talking about, Kobe Bryant would simply not be as good as Jordan. You've taken what we've said and immediately turned it to "because you claim canned goods are not as healthy, you are saying they are bad".

No need to keep offering your book, I have no desire to read it. I don't need to read Obama's book to know that I won't like it either.

Just because you "don't like something" means you don't read it? Wow. I read Obama's book because it helps me better understand him, even if I disagree.

Uh.. fiber? How on earth can you claim corn has no nutritional value?

Because corn requires massive amounts of grinding/chewing before the nutrients actually come out of the kernel (the good stuff is in the hull) and most normal people don't chew it enough to get the value out of it. So, I apologize for not explaining what I meant. It has nutritional value, but it's hard to get to.

But you cook them at home. You add salt at home. Throw in a "pinch" of salt while you're cooking... how many milligrams is that? I bet you'd be surprised.

I do? The only vegetables that we really cook at home are ones that require cooking to remove bitterness (chard, escarole) or ones that are inedible unless cooked (asparagus). Sure, I may add salt, but in comparison to people adding salt to already salted canned goods (which I would venture to say most people do) it is a minuscule amount.

I'm not wasting my time reading an entire crappy book just to further a discussion on Techsans...

That's fine, this will be last post about this.

I don't think you were looking very hard but ok. See my salt comment above. This is getting stupid if you decided to visit two different grocery stores to further this discussion. You eat what makes you feel good. I still don't buy into what yall are saying, and still have seen no evidence to support your claims other than "they add stuff".

I looked hard enough that I asked at both stores. Both only had the single brand and one can of "No Salt Added" green beans from another manufacturer (couldn't find anything else from them). I didn't visit the stores to further the discussion, I had to go to pick up a few items on my way home. And how is it "stupid"? I'm at least making an attempt to learn. I thought you might be right, so I went down the aisles. Had I found more, I would have said so.

"You eat what makes you feel good" is the understatement of the century. I don't necessarily eat things that make me feel good, I eat things that taste good. Part of the book goes into how our perception of what tastes good has changed over the years (such as white bread turning to sugar in the body). What tastes good may make us feel good short term or long term. Or, it may feel good short term and be detrimental in the long term.

The fact that you do not want to read the book, which has the citations that support our claims, because you don't like it, means it wouldn't matter if we posted evidence or not, you would either deny it or ignore it.

[impala454]

No, you're comparing apples to oranges. First, we've never said they are bad for you (though the book takes that route), we just stated that canned goods are not as good for you.

I thought the book's conclusions are what we're debating. Since you guys seem to be defending and claiming how much healthier you are because you eat fresh foods rather than canned, I didn't see a problem pinning the idea on you as well. If that's not correct then ok.

Second, comparing Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan is subjective because you have a preference. Saying that Kobe Bryant sucks would be an incorrect correlation to what we are talking about, Kobe Bryant would simply not be as good as Jordan. You've taken what we've said and immediately turned it to "because you claim canned goods are not as healthy, you are saying they are bad".

The analogy makes perfect sense. You could say Michael Jordan was superior to Kobe Bryant, just like you can say that you made a far superior grade than someone else if you got a 95 and they got a 93. But it's silly to say IMHO when the difference isn't that significant. Claiming "superiority" to me would seem to indicate a significant difference. In food nutrition, even your very broad claim of 5-20% is not significant in my opinion.

Just because you "don't like something" means you don't read it? Wow. I read Obama's book because it helps me better understand him, even if I disagree.

Why on earth would you find it strange that someone wouldn't want to waste their time reading a book that they don't believe they'll find interesting?

Because corn requires massive amounts of grinding/chewing before the nutrients actually come out of the kernel (the good stuff is in the hull) and most normal people don't chew it enough to get the value out of it. So, I apologize for not explaining what I meant. It has nutritional value, but it's hard to get to.

Even if you swallow it whole it serves its purpose... moving crap through your digestive track... if it has other nutrients based on how much you chew... that's just a bonus IMHO.

I do? The only vegetables that we really cook at home are ones that require cooking to remove bitterness (chard, escarole) or ones that are inedible unless cooked (asparagus). Sure, I may add salt, but in comparison to people adding salt to already salted canned goods (which I would venture to say most people do) it is a minuscule amount.

I knew you'd come back with this. How much is a "minuscule" amount? I bet you'd be surprised. Compare it to the "crazy" amount of salt you find in canned goods. I have a giant can of soup in my hand (2 cups), and if you measure the salt content via the sodium, the entire can has roughly 2 grams of sodium. A quick (and admittedly could be wrong) conversion looking at weights and sodium content of salt online, that would equate to a 1/3 of a teaspoon of salt. And I definitely don't add any more salt to it. So I really think if you want to diss canned foods for their salt content, you should really learn how much salt is in them before assuming it's too much.

That's fine, this will be last post about this.

doubtful, though I'm sure you'll have to prove me wrong by not posting again, now that I said this

I looked hard enough that I asked at both stores. Both only had the single brand and one can of "No Salt Added" green beans from another manufacturer (couldn't find anything else from them). I didn't visit the stores to further the discussion, I had to go to pick up a few items on my way home. And how is it "stupid"? I'm at least making an attempt to learn. I thought you might be right, so I went down the aisles. Had I found more, I would have said so.

I didn't say what you did was stupid. I said:

This is getting stupid if you decided to visit two different grocery stores to further this discussion.

So if you read it correctly, the "stupid" part was contingent on your reasoning for going to the grocery store.

"You eat what makes you feel good" is the understatement of the century. I don't necessarily eat things that make me feel good, I eat things that taste good. Part of the book goes into how our perception of what tastes good has changed over the years (such as white bread turning to sugar in the body). What tastes good may make us feel good short term or long term. Or, it may feel good short term and be detrimental in the long term.

Right, but perceptions are often different from the facts.

The fact that you do not want to read the book, which has the citations that support our claims, because you don't like it, means it wouldn't matter if we posted evidence or not, you would either deny it or ignore it.

The opinions of this author are not any kind of evidence. It's just his own opinion. What I would consider evidence to support your claim is something like a description of what exactly is going into canned goods that makes them so bad. I.e. X amount of Y chemical goes in and Z is what it does to your body. I would assume the author does this somewhere... if not then the book is even more worthless.

[Spectatrix]

I knew you'd come back with this. How much is a "minuscule" amount? I bet you'd be surprised. Compare it to the "crazy" amount of salt you find in canned goods. I have a giant can of soup in my hand (2 cups), and if you measure the salt content via the sodium, the entire can has roughly 2 grams of sodium. A quick (and admittedly could be wrong) conversion looking at weights and sodium content of salt online, that would equate to a 1/3 of a teaspoon of salt. And I definitely don't add any more salt to it. So I really think if you want to diss canned foods for their salt content, you should really learn how much salt is in them before assuming it's too much.

1 teaspoon of salt has 2300 mg of sodium, a smidgen less than the 2400 RDA.

The opinions of this author are not any kind of evidence. It's just his own opinion. What I would consider evidence to support your claim is something like a description of what exactly is going into canned goods that makes them so bad. I.e. X amount of Y chemical goes in and Z is what it does to your body. I would assume the author does this somewhere... if not then the book is even more worthless.

The book cites a ton of scientific studies, so it's not just his own opinion. If you'd like, I could post some of his citations when I get home tonight.

[impala454]

That'd be cool... I am just curious to see something like: "This study found that when you see X chemical on the label, it is added for Y reason, and Z is what it does to your body that's negative in ____ amount"

Sodium content RDA... eh.. I suppose it makes sense for a "normal" person. Looking at the pdf from the people who make the RDA (here), it's actually even less than that... The recommended daily amount is 1,500mg, and the "tolerable upper intake levels" is 2,300mg. Sounds a little hokey if you ask me, but I digress. 1/3 of a tsp difference between recommended and tolerable?

[Spectatrix]

Didn't see your reply until this morning. I'll dig up some quotes & citations tonight, unless Hartmann gets to it first.

The main thrust of his book wasn't so much that processed food was bad, though. He was largely complaining about reductionist nutrition. E.g., researchers look at people eating carrots and conclude that beta carotene is good for you. Or fish -> omega 3's. Then instead of recommending people eat the whole foods that show beneficial effects, they talk about the importance of getting X amount of Y nutrient in your diet, whether through diet or supplementation.

He also talked about the benefits of eating locally-grown produce over stuff that's picked unripe, out of season, and shipped halfway across the country/world.

-----

RDA on sodium is a little wonky. Most people can (and do) tolerate much higher levels than the RDA. In some folks, though, high sodium pushes their blood pressure up. I have hypertension (treated with meds), but I never found that reducing my sodium helped lower it.

[impala454]

I can agree with the premise you mention for the book. I often read about a "study" that was done which I think draws silly conclusions. I.e. something like: "A study at such&such school of 500 people found that if they ate X food for 30 days then Y happened. This means X food is responsible for Y." Well to me (who questions everything (as if yall didn't know that )), I have to wonder if Y happened more because they were eating less of what they previously ate, or if it was some commonality as far as the region the food was served in, the way the food was prepared, etc, etc.

The scientific studies that I like to see are stuff like "in a lab, we did this to food X and found that preparing it a certain way did Y to the food". Without them drawing some fantastical conclusion about the food, just telling you the raw results of the study. Like in my Men's Health mag the other day, I read that some study found that if you fry an egg vs a lower heat method of cooking, it releases some chemical (forget the name) that promotes reduction of bad cholesterol. They simply told you their results, that the higher heat cooking brought out this chemical. They did not claim "eating fried eggs helps lower cholesterol." It's basically like, tell me what you did, show me the result, and I'll draw my own conclusions thank you.

[impala454]

Oh and also, I'm curious, do you take your own blood pressure with a monitor at home? If not, go get one. What type of method does your doctor's office use to measure your blood pressure? Is it an older one where they manually pump the air bag and read an analog dial? I found big time that a couple of different doctor's offices I've been to, the "assistants" or whatever they are (most of the time not even nurses) have no clue how to properly take blood pressure. It might be because I have a huge arm, I dunno. But they always read it out of sight (like 140s/90s, or even higher). I'm like... uh... no. Then I had my actual doctor do it once, just to prove, and it's completely normal. She had me get one of those wrist based monitors and take it at home every day for a month and write it down, on average I was at like 115/75. So moral of the story, don't necessarily trust the doctor's office for blood pressure. It's crazy, makes me wonder how many people out there are improperly getting blood pressure meds.

[Spectatrix]

Yeah, I have a monitor at home, though I don't use it often. I was first diagnosed at 15 or 16 after I noticed that my blood pressure readings were always high at multiple clinics. We know now that it's due to my kidney cysts. Oddly enough, though, studies indicate that my blood pressure may get better as my kidney disease gets worse.

My BP is around 150/100 normally, and 120/70 with meds.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Jun 5 2009, 10:42 AM

[Spectatrix]

Little late on this, sorry. Here's a quote from the book that exemplifies most of what we were talking about.

As we've seen, processing whole foods -- refining, chemically preserving, and canning them -- depletes them of many nutrients, a few of which are then added back: B vitamins in refined flour, vitamins and minerals in breakfast cereal and bread. Fortifying processed foods with missing nutrients is surely better than leaving them out, but food science can add back only the small handful of nutrients that food science recognizes as important today. What is it overlooking? As the whole-grain food synergy study suggests, science doesn't know nearly enough to compensate for everything that processing does to whole foods. We know how to break down a kernal of corn or grain of what into its chemical parts, but we have no idea how to put it back together again. Destroying complexity is a lot easier than creating it.

The study mentioned is "Nutrients, Foods, and Dietary Patterns as Exposures in Research: A Framework for Food Synergy" from American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

[impala454]

I'm sure the study goes into the detail I'd like to see.

Let me say this just as kinda a compromise with you guys:

I think you guys are correct for the most part when you're talking about complete foods that are ready to eat. What I mean by that is something like a hot pocket, frozen dinner, can of soup, or some other pre-cooked meal.

I think I am correct when it comes to single foods or ingredients, such as a simple can of corn, tomatoes, tuna or some such.

[Spectatrix]

I completely agree. Complex packaged foods like the ones you mentioned are harmful mainly due to excess added sugar, salt, fat, etc. Canned foods, not so much of a problem, though I generally can't stand no-salt-added veggies. Fresh = fantastic, frozen = fantastic, no-salt canned = crap, at least in my experience. Not sure why, since I don't necessarily add salt to my fresh/frozen veggies.

Also, whole foods like whole wheat flour, natural sugars, etc. are more healthful than refined white flour, white sugar, etc.

----

Oh, and even though I only listed one citation, the book has over 22 pages of sources. Just dug out the one I thought was most relevant. It really is a good read. I think you'd get a kick out of the first third of the book, which talks about the history of nutritional "science" and food fads.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Jun 6 2009, 09:56 PM