Posts Tagged food science

BCAAs–Waste of Money Supplement Scam

Branched chain amino acids, or BCAAs, are synonymous with the amino acids leucine, isoleucine, and valine.  These are essential amino acids, of which there are 9.  Essential amino acids are found in pretty much any source of protein or protein complement.  This includes eggs, soy, animal flesh, dairy protein (casein and whey), beans, nuts, seeds, and grains (which tend to be low on lysine, they still have BCAAs).  Essential means you must eat them every day for good nutrition.

I’m tired of seeing this scam promoted.  If you eat protein, your blood has plenty of BCAAs.  If you are worried about your BCAA level going down during exercise, eat dietary sources of protein sometime within 2-3 hours of your workout or a faster absorbing protein 30 min to 1 hour before your workout (whey) if you didn’t plan your day well enough to have dietary sources.  That is a good time period to ensure BCAAs, or protein in general, will be in your blood.

If you supplement with BCAAs or protein and your body doesn’t need it, your liver deaminates (removes the nitrogen group) or transaminates (moves the nitrogen to a different keto acid, making a different amino acid) the amino acid to maintain homeostasis.  The nitrogen group forms urea, which is filtered by the kidneys into your urine.

The carbon backbone of the amino acid is then integrated into either glucogenic pathways (pathways that synthesize glucose) or ketogenic pathways (pathways that synthesize fatty acids and ketones).

In other words, BCAAs become carbohydrate or fat calories, just like dietary carbohydrate and dietary fat do, and an insignificant amount of calories at that.  Except you bought BCAAs, and your body isn’t using them like that.  Consider the cost difference.  Let me break it down for you:

If you bought a container of BCAAs with 40 servings of 10 calories each, you might get 400 Calories from that whole container, according to the label.  That said, they apparently don’t count the protein from amino acids into the total calories on the label.  This particular item actually has 12 Calories from carbohydrate (rounded down to 10, so that is legit), but 5 g of protein from amino acids leucine, isoleucine, and valine.

Add 20 calories to that serving size from the 5g of protein, so there are about 30 calories per serving total.  So, 30 calories times 40 servings means the bottle has 1200 calories total, 3 times as much as reported on the label.

If that’s not enough to make you distrust this supplement, this bottle costs $26.39 at the time this post is written.  For $26.39, you could have bought about 10 bags of rice and 10 bags of beans or lentils, or you could buy 5 bottles of olive oil or 2-3 large containers of nuts if you prefer to get your calories from fat.  All of these are much more cost effective per calorie than buying a bottle of BCAAs.

People who tell you to buy BCAAs may be salesmen trying to make a living in the supplement industry or personal trainers who don’t have any human physiology or biochemistry education who work for gyms that tell you to push supplements or lose your job.  These are not people you should take nutrition advice from.

Please comment, share, and subscribe to my newsletter for updates!



Share on FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mind-Body Foods and Health: Alcohol, Chocolate, Tea

According to research, drinking moderately may reduce risk of disease and mortality.  This week, it is linked to a reduced risk of heart failure.  Not drinking or drinking too much is supposed to be worse than moderate drinking in terms of risk of disease.  This is often shown in association studies (observational studies).  Not cause and effect studies.

Chocolate is also supposed to be good for you.  Scientific opinion states that 200 mg daily has a cause-effect relationship on endothelial cell-dependent vasodilation (widening) of blood vessels.  Observational studies show it can affect memory, heart disease, stroke, and cholesterol levels.

Drinking tea has been associated with anticancer properties and blood pressure reduction.

I have issues with all of these topics, so this post is going to give you my personal opinion on all of them.

I stay up to date reading the news releases of the latest studies through various channels.  It can sometimes take me 2-3 hours a day to get through it all.  Combine this with my nine years of nutrition and exercise education and training as well as professional practice, I have developed some pretty opinionated thoughts when I hear news on alcohol being good for you or chocolate being good for you.

Here’re my thoughts on these topics:

Alcohol

Nutrition biochemistry says that alcohol can impair B-vitamin absorption and enhance pro-oxidant absorption since it messes with the integrity of the epithelium of the intestines.  Alcoholics are often deficient in thiamine, which is vitamin B1.  Pro-oxidants are the opposite of antioxidants.  One gives an electron and the other receives an electron.

Alcohol forces the liver to detoxify it immediately.  This is one of the few cases I will actually use the word ‘detox’ because it is appropriately used.

Alcohol is empty calories.  It does absolutely no good for your body as a chemical itself.  It is not a necessary nutrient.  It probably isn’t helping you control your weight.  Yet we make it harder on ourselves because some consider you weird if you don’t drink alcohol.

People can become alcoholics from alcohol.  It is used as a way to deal with their issues.  This is so common it is shown in movies and on TV.  You can get withdrawal from it.  It can cause liver cirrhosis, or liver scarring.

Because 71% of people drink alcohol, it is expected in most social gatherings.  It is a socially acceptable drug to use publicly.  Conversely, it is often perceived as socially unacceptable to not be drinking alcohol.

So, with all these things we know about how negative alcohol is to humans, SOMEHOW the studies show that moderate drinking could be good for us, NOT drinking is bad for us, and drinking too much is very bad for us.  There is a J-curve with alcohol consumption.  How does this add up?

The explanation I assert is that it isn’t the alcohol that is making people healthier.  It is the socialization, which is not controlled for in observational (association) studies because MOST people drink with other people at dinner parties or out on the town.

Think about it.  People who drink are out on the town having fun.  Being out on the town involves walking, which is physical activity that counts.  They aren’t depressed and sitting at home being sedentary.  Depressed and sitting at home is often associated with other negative behaviors in itself, such as overeating or drinking alone, and feeling left out.

People who don’t drink can feel pressured to defend their abstinence in social situations, depending on the person.  It can make for a very uncomfortable social experience to be assailed with questions on why someone isn’t drinking when being out.  A Google search of “why is not drinking weird” brings up many posts that can explain the mentality of those who choose not to drink and how it affects their life and other people’s perceptions of it.  Ovik Banerjee wrote a nice post on not drinking’s downstream social effects that got some great comments.

Having fun, laughing, and bonding with others relaxes blood vessels on its own because stress is low so the nervous system is less likely to be constricting your blood vessels.

Perhaps the small amount of alcohol that people feel is necessary for them to have in order to have fun, laugh, and bond with others doesn’t negatively outweigh the benefits of having fun, laughing, and bonding with others.  It may not outweigh the excitement of meeting someone new, being on a date, or being with people you like.

Alcohol is supposed to ward off cognitive decline, magically somehow.  I say this is because people who are drinking alcohol are socializing, which is actually a complex phenomenon of listening to other people, interpreting what they say, reflecting on it based on your own experience, and responding with empathy.  The alternative, sitting alone home by yourself, is probably associated with depression and boredom, which are not very stimulating states compared to socializing.  In my opinion, cognitive decline follows the ‘use it or lose it’ mantra.

People who don’t drink at all are missing out on the benefits of having fun, laughing, and bonding with others, but they also aren’t getting the negative effects of alcohol either.  After all, it does destroy the integrity of your intestinal mucosa and inhibit ion channels in nerve cells, which leads you to the popular mental effects of drinking alcohol.

People who binge drink, you know, those who in college are holding each others hair over the toilet or being propped up on their sides so as to not die in their own vomit, have the worst health effects.  Maybe they are drinking too much because they have other issues they are escaping, trying to fit in too hard, or just hate themselves and take it out on their bodies.

Chocolate

Most people know that it is dark chocolate that is supposed to be better than milk chocolate because it has a higher percentage of cocoa.  Well if that’s the case, then why don’t we just all save some money, leave the candy aisle, and just go to the cooking aisle and buy pure cocoa powder and start using it?

Oh right, it doesn’t taste that good by itself without all the fat and sugar surrounding the cocoa that makes what we know chocolate.  Milk chocolate tastes way better.  Let’s not kid ourselves.

Because I’m scientific and experiment sometimes, I have been purchasing cocoa powder from the cooking aisle ever since I heard about the benefits of chocolate.  I didn’t see the need to get all the extra saturated fat and empty sugar calories from having the candy form because, personally, I don’t need that stuff.  Maybe you do, but I don’t.

Based on the article linked above on the observational benefits of chocolate, I might experience lower cholesterol, heart disease, stroke, memory decline, and relaxation of blood vessels.  I had been adding it to my porridge in the morning, which makes it change color and look like chocolate porridge.  It is an…acquired taste…one that I actually enjoy after doing it for a while.

That said, I honestly don’t think it is doing much for my physiology.  Part of this reason is because I don’t derive the same sense of subjective relaxation and joy most people associate with chocolate, which can lead to the cardiovascular and memory benefits.

Some women say that chocolate stimulates the same area in their brain as sex.  Well, for me, I am not experiencing any orgasm from my cocoa powder in my porridge.  Therefore, it probably isn’t having the same effect on my brain and blood vessels as people who subjectively experience pure, better-than-sex bliss from eating this food.

This gets me to the subject of subjective experience from food.  There are people who will read a study or news release and make a behavior change based upon that study.  If chocolate is found to be good for you, they will start eating it because of the possible, yet mechanism unexplained, health benefits.  They will eat it like medicine.

I have worked with clients like this and probably am this type of person.  These types like to eat chocolate daily because the news releases have said that it is good for you.  Maybe it is good for THEM.  I’m not denying that.  But if you really don’t enjoy eating it, it probably is not giving you the health benefits the article says because people experience food differently.

The same thing goes for tea.

Tea

Compare the experience someone has who enjoys drinking tea vs drinking tea for the health benefits.

Having tea involves taking time out from your day to make the tea, wait for it to cool (or scald your mouth, whichever you do), and slowly sip it while reciting whatever pleasant mantra you have in your mind that relaxes you.  I choose “serenity now.”  Tea is an experience that promotes the flow of chi.  I imagine hearing the rolling waves of the ocean and the pleasant sound of water flowing while pouring tea into my self-crafted colorful pottery mug with its appropriately matching saucer.  Miraculously, I do not have to pee with all these water sounds.  I am spiritually centered and feeling warm zen as I slowly consume my hot water flavored with the leaves of the Camellia sinensis plant.

Now let’s look at another situation.

I boiled or microwaved water and poured it into my tea-stained reused white mug that has a tea bag that I purchased because it has health benefits.  I make sure the water is hot enough to disinfect any bacteria from the last time I used it.  Later, I forgot I poured the tea only come back to it two hours later in a rush as I’m leaving the house, so I quaff down the whole cup of flavored cool water.  It is kind of gross at this point, but I drink it anyway because it is good for me.

Which situation do you think lowered your blood pressure?  Obviously quaffing the stuff down as fast as possible in a rush out the door probably won’t have the same health benefits as sipping soothing flavored water slowly.

I can’t speak to the anticancer effects.  Maybe both situations benefit from just having the phytochemicals in tea.  Many health behaviors and foods are associated with a reduced risk of cancer, but there is not strong enough evidence to say that doing these things all the time will completely prevent cancer.  I would think that scalding your mouth with the tea may increase the risk of mouth cancer due to the turnover of epithelial cells in your mouth, but I can’t say for sure.

Summary

Sometimes the food itself has nothing to do with the reported health benefits associated with a food.  Perhaps some health benefits are chemically related to the foods themselves in some cases, but when association studies come out to promote certain foods, I like to examine things in contexts that people often don’t think about.

Alcohol, tea, and chocolate are good examples of the point that certain foods can have subjective effects on the mind that can confer health benefits for some people.  Others who do not get the same subjective experience from these foods are not weird but socially ostracized, which can have negative health effects if care is not taken to rationalize the whole situation and find other ways to achieve the health benefits.

If you like this post, please tell me why in the comments below and share.  If you don’t like this post, please let me know why in the comments below and share.



Share on FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Tags: , , , ,

Saccharin Human Trial: Artificial Sweeteners News Part 2

Last week I discussed why you shouldn’t freak out about the latest news about artificial sweeteners.  This week, I will give a bit more information on the study, now that I have obtained a full-text copy of it from professional resources.  Specifically, I will let you how much the humans were consuming and real food recommendations you can take from this study, as yes, there are some take-home messages for some of the population, particularly diet soda/pop drinkers, and not as much for those who use packets of artificial sweetener.

Before I get started, I would like to link to this post in theguardian.com about how journals like Nature, Cell, and Science are damaging science due to incentives.  I agree with a lot of what this writer says.  Back to my post.

According to the human trial in this study, the only sweetener tested was saccharin, which is sold as Sweet N Low (the pink packets).  Thus, everything I say will apply only to saccharin.  The science doesn’t speak strongly for other sweeteners at this time because they were mice experiments.  Similar pathways and mechanisms for glucose intolerance based on species of microbiota present in mice can be surmised, but it is only preliminary and cannot be assumed the same happens for all human populations.

Before we go into specifics, the humans studied were not well-controlled based on the paper description. There is not a mention of the type of humans other than that they were “seven healthy volunteers (5 males and 2 females, aged 28-36) who do not normally consume NAS or NAS-containing foods for 1 week.”  NAS means non-caloric artificial sweeteners (more on researchers writing in code in another blog post…).  We don’t know anything about these humans’ weights, heights, race, diet, exercise habits, stress, family history of diabetes, etc.  That’s a lot of information to not have about these subjects.

The humans were given the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) maximum acceptable daily intake of commercial saccharin of 5 mg per kilogram body weight in three divided daily doses equivalent to 120 mg, totaling 360 mg a day.  They were monitored by continuous glucose measurements and daily glucose tolerance tests (GTT).  Doing some math, this is the maximum dose allowed for someone who is about 158 lbs.  There was no mention of the individual humans’ weights.  A glucose tolerance test is when someone ingests 75 g of glucose (which is about five 8″ tortillas or two cans of Coke, if Coke was pure glucose and not fructose, in 5 minutes time) and researchers measure blood glucose at regular intervals afterwards for three hours.

I would think that just taking a glucose tolerance test every day for 6 days would have an effect on glucose tolerance, but they were also consuming the maximum “safe” amount of saccharin on top of it.  There were four participants who experienced glucose intolerance, and the researchers noted that their gut bacteria had higher counts of Bacteroides fragilisWeissella cibaria, and Candidatus Arthromitus.

To get the same amount of saccharin (360 mg) a day the subjects had, you would have to consume 10 packets of Sweet N Low per day, since each packet has 36 mg of saccharin.  So unless you are using that many Sweet N Low packets a day, I wouldn’t worry about this study.

The only diet soda I know that still uses saccharin is called Tab, produced by The Coca-Cola Company, with 96 mg of saccharin per 12 fluid ounce can.  The FDA also sets a limit of 12 mg saccharin per fluid ounce.  So unless you drink 4 of these 12 fluid ounce cans per day, as well as eat large amounts of pure glucose sugar along side it equivalent to a glucose tolerance test without any other food to slow down that glucose absorption (such protein and fat found in whole foods), I wouldn’t worry about artificial sweeteners yet.

What’s your take on this study?  Do you disagree with my conclusions?  Did I miss something?  Please comment and share.

 



Share on FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Tags: , , , , , ,

Stop Freaking Out About Artificial Sweeteners

Edit 9/25/14: I have received a full-text copy of the study and made a follow-up blog post to this one on the human intervention part of this study as well as quantified the amounts of saccharin you must eat to experience the effects the humans achieved in the study.

One of this week’s catchy nutrition-related headlines is “Artificial sweeteners could cause spikes in blood sugar.”  Rant ON…

The real scientific article published in Nature says “Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota,” and if you read the article abstract, which is all the public has access to unless you pay for the article or are at an academic or professional institution that has access to the article, you will see that the experiment was done on MICE.  They demonstrated that feeding MICE artificial sweeteners changes MOUSE gut bacteria, transplanted the gut bacteria into a germ free MOUSE, and then those MICE also had the same metabolic profile as the MICE eating whatever concentration of artificial sweeteners they were fed.

These studies have already been conducted, i.e. studies that show the gut microflora has an impact on your body chemistry, in other studies with mice fecal transplantation. There are also case studies of humans with bowel inflammation being cured at high rates with fecal transplantation from healthy individuals.

What this article does NOT show is that humans who consume artificial sweeteners, likely in amounts that don’t quite reach that which mice were fed (but who can say, since the public doesn’t have access to the article without paying), are likely to experience the same metabolic derangements.  Yes, humans may have some of the same metabolic pathways that could be affected by the bacteria, but the study did NOT show that humans who eat artificial sweeteners WILL GET spikes in blood sugar or experience glucose intolerance.

Glucose intolerance is affected by quite a number of other factors, not just artificial sweeteners, such as inactivity and overall caloric content and macronutrient distributation (carbs/fat/protein) of that diet.  The idea that a small amount of artificial sweetener is a game breaker for humans is highly unlikely.

I chew gum with artificial sweetener daily because it keeps my breath fresh when working with clients and lacks real sugar, which feeds oral bacteria that may promote cavities in humans.  Some days I might have 4 pieces of gum.  I don’t have glucose intolerance OR cavities.  Far from it.  I’m very physically active and eat a balanced diet to match my caloric expenditure.  Unless artificial sweeteners represent a significant portion by weight of food you are eating, I would not give these headlines any more credence.

These headlines are more likely to hurt those who exhibit obsessive-compulsive tendencies to avoid anything at all possible that MIGHT be considered bad (colloquially termed orthorexia).  Articles like these cause undo anxiety for these people who don’t know who to believe so just dot all their i’s and cross all their t’s when it comes to nutrition, regardless of the strength of the science and the source of the information.

Rant OFF.  Please comment and share.



Share on FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Tags: , , , , , ,

Protein Blend as Good as Whey: Cheap Alternative Idea

A number of studies released in the past year1,2,3 have investigated the effects of various processed milk proteins such as casein and whey on muscle protein synthesis after resistance training.

One of these studies (1) found that a combination of the three proteins, whey, soy, and casein is just as effective as whey at increasing amino acid transporter expression, transport, and myofibrillar protein synthesis, due to the varying rate of digestion of the proteins and their release into the blood stream, affecting the availability of the amino acids (building blocks of protein).

This would make it seem that you don’t have to go buy whey or bust; instead, you could just go cheaper with protein blends in supplements.  Not so fast.  The researchers were able to control the leucine content of the beverage more than anyone trying to mix the stuff up himself or herself probably would.

Whey and soy are both high in leucine, with whey slightly higher.  Whey is a more expensive ingredient though.  Soy is not as expensive.  Milk protein is udderly (ha) 20% whey and 80% casein naturally out of the cow udder.  Whey is considered a fast digesting protein, soy is considered almost as fast (medium), and casein is considered a slower protein to digest.

Since dietary supplements are not regulated until after they reach the market, often when someone experiences an adverse effect, it is unlikely that the supplement manufacturer is also rigorously testing the leucine content unless it is third party certified by ConsumerLab or NSF.  Knowing this, what can you do if you don’t want to go spend money on supplements that aren’t regulated?

Make your own next-best post-workout smoothie!  Try some chocolate soymilk, nonfat dry milk (NFDM) aka powdered milk, and stir it up.

homemade post workout smoothie

Probably cheaper than that supplement, too.

A 1-cup serving of chocolate soymilk has 17g sugar and 5g protein while 1 serving of NFDM has 12g sugar and 8g protein.  Total, you get 13 grams of protein and 29g of sugar, which is roughly a 1:2.2 ratio of protein to carbohydrate.  Make it a smoothie by adding a serving of frozen berries and you’ll be closer to the optimal 1:3 ratio of protein to carbohydrate that is recommended post-workout.  Only 200-250 Calories, depending on whether you use berries.  Double or halve it depending on your calorie needs.

Now you have a homemade smoothie consisting of a protein blend of soy, whey, and casein!  Sounds too good to be true, huh?  Of course, we’re not controlling the leucine content either, nor likely are the manufacturers of the supplements.

Why, then, are researchers allowed to create such artificial situations that aren’t able to be transferred into practice?  It may have something to do with the fact that supplement manufacturers want to make money by processing simple, cheaper ingredients into something that may be demonstrated to be marginally better in an artificial, unrealistic, quixotic lab test than the original foods for the largest profit margin.  Or, just for the sake of SCIENCE!



Share on FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Tags: , , , , , ,

How Many Calories in 1 Tbsp of Yak Butter?

The answer to this question depends on what your country considers “butter.”  For a product in the US, butter has to have 80% butterfat, whereas in the UK butter has to have 85% butterfat, with the rest being milk proteins and water.  If the butterfat is clarified into 100% of the product sold, such as ghee, then the calories rise to 135 Calories per tablespoon, which is an example of the amount of calories in 1 pure tablespoon of butterfat from a cow.

Then the question is what percentage of butterfat is yak butter? According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations yak butter has 12-15% water, 1% protein, and the rest fat, coming very close to the US and UK definitions of “butter.”

In the US, cow butter has about 102 Calories per tablespoon.  This is the product with at least 80% butterfat.  The milk from which it is made, whole milk, has 3.25% butterfat.  Yak milk has about twice as much butterfat raw (7%) as cow milk raw.  However, just because yak milk has about twice as much butterfat in the raw milk form does NOT mean that the butter product that is made from it would have twice as many calories in the same tablespoon.

Fat has a certain density of calories, that is 9 Calories per gram of fat, and butter, by definition, must have 80% butterfat.  Since butter ranges from 80-85% fat content, it is safe to say that yak butter should have nearly the same calories as cow butter since fat has a known caloric density (9 Calories per gram) and roughly the same amount of fat grams will be in a tablespoon of any type of butter if it can be called “butter,” according to the definitions stated.

This is no where near the quoted number of 800 calories per tablespoon given in Tracy Anderson’s interview.  Yak butter should have similar amounts of calories as the definition of the butter in the country where it is sold, assuming you bought a regulated source of yak butter.

This question is similar to which weighs more, 1 lb of feathers or 1 lb of gold?  They weigh the same: 1 lb.  Butter has a specific definition of density of butterfat, so 1 tablespoon of butter has a certain amount of calories because it has a certain amount of fat grams. This number is similar for goat butter, which has 110 calories per tablespoon, which is very similar to that of cow butter.  Yak butter would be no different.

Note: Calories is capitalized next to a unit to differentiate between a calorie and a kilocalorie (1 kcal (kilocalorie) = 1 Calorie = 1000 calories).  Calories doesn’t have to be capitalized when it is used generically, ie without a number preceding it.  Food calories are always in kilocalories, so a 2000 Calorie diet has 2,000,000 calories.



Share on FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Tags: