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.

[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).