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).

[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.

[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.

[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.