How much fruit and veg do we eat?

Let’s see if we have got this right – fruit and vegetables are good for you. Why? Well, there are all those wonderful nutrients, all the antioxidants, plus other stuff that seem to protect our brains and eyes, and add the fibre and plant sterols which help our bowels and heart. Of course, they have no added fats, salt or sugars in their natural state. And they are dolphin safe.

Should we be impressed with the list of benefits from fruit and veg? You would think so. But we aren’t. Every group I present to, whether adult or child, have picked up the 2 & 5 message (two fruits and five serves of vegetables in Australia).

Barely 1 in 5 adults get their 2 & 5

Just released is a US report stating that just over a quarter (27%) of American adults eat enough veggies, while about a third (33%) eat enough fruit. Only 14% of their adult citizens are eating both enough fruit and vegetables.

In Australia, a survey of over 1100 adults showed that one in five people (19%) eat enough vegetables and just over half (57%) eat enough fruit. I would just like to remind you that this was a survey, and when you ask humans about stuff, they love to impress the interviewer (ie they tell fibs), so you can bet those figures are an over estimate.

Fruit bonus

Now comes research telling us that we may have under sold fruit from an antioxidant perspective. When polyphenols, a class of antioxidants, have been measured in the past we only picked up a fifth of the total amount. To find the extra a team of scientists from the UK and Spain used an acid extraction process on apples, peaches and nectarines.

“If non-extractable polyphenols are not considered, the levels of beneficial polyphenols such as proanthocyanidins, ellagic acid and catechin and substantially under estimated,” said lead researcher Sara Arranz.

We have no idea what is a serve size

The good folk promoting fruit and veg tell me they have increased intake by about half a serve of each over the last decade, which is commendable. It may be that one barrier we face is that so many don’t even know what a serve size is. Unbelievably, the survey found that only 4 out of 10 people knew that a piece of fruit (apple, pear, banana) was a serve. What was the other 6 out of 10 thinking? Half an apple? One grape? 0.723 of a medium sized fruit? pi x r² where r= the radius of the fruit? Who knows? More expectedly, only 1 in 8 knew that half a cup of vegetables was a serve.

Should we tell people to eat less fruit and vegetables?

Here’s a common argument: Don’t tell people the really healthy level of exercise they should do because you will scare them and they won’t do any exercise at all. You have to be gentle with humans and get them to exercise for 30 minutes a day, before you tell them they should really be exercising for 60 minutes a day, and even more if they have “trouble with their weight”. Should we tell people to eat 1 & 3, and then gradually encourage them to move to 2 & 5? I prefer to tell people the truth. Exercise for 60+ minutes a day, eat 2 & 5, tea and coffee don’t dehydrate you, diet soft drinks don’t cause cancer, and the best cricketers still come from Australia!

What does it all mean?

Fruits and vegetables aren’t really contributing to health because we just don’t eat enough for them to give us a benefit. Most people don’t know what serve of fruit and vegetables looks like, so maybe we need to make that clear from the outset. With pictures. And then we pass legislation that states that health promotion advertisements need to be simple and fun and not the dictatorial, finger-wagging warnings we seem to get. I have said it many times – when we make fruit and vegetable advertisements like they make beer ads we might have a decent chance of getting men to eat their greens.

References: Public Health Nutrition 2008; 12 (5): 637-643; Journal of Agricultural & Food Chemistry 2009; 57: 7298-7303

If you stop exercising, your muscle turns to fat

No it doesn’t. Muscle cannot convert to fat. When you stop exercising then muscles will diminish in size, generally lowering your metabolic rate. The drop in kJs/Calories burned through less exercise and a lower metabolism makes it so much easier to gain kilos as fat. Muscles start to shrink after four decades on the planet, so it is a great idea to keep active through life so that you both maintain your muscle mass and keep your metabolic rate up. That applies to both men and women, especially those that enjoy their chocolate.

Women & chocolate

If you crave for a food, then you are normal, or at least in the majority. Over 80% of young women and 75% of young men feel the need for certain foods, while only two out of three older people have the urge to track down specific foods. Chocolate is the single most craved food. No surprises there.

Women love chocolate. They will do almost anything to acquire it. Men too love chocolate, although pizza is more likely to be their first choice. It is often speculated that the desire for chocolate by women is hormonally driven, with the greatest desire just before, and a couple of days after, the onset of menstruation.

The need for chocolate

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania recruited 280 women who were either 46, 63 or 82 years old. They had determined that if hormone cycles influenced chocolate desire then there should be a 38% drop in chocolate cravings post-menopausal. However, they found only a 13% drop in cravings. About 90% of pre-menopausal women craved chocolate compared to 76% of post-menopausal women, so it is clear the need for chocolate was profound in most women.

It’s not the hormones

The researchers state that: “the sizeable proportion of women in all age groups who report chocolate and other cravings indicates that the notion of 'craving' is not generation-specific, but rather an experience that is familiar to women of any age.”

Previously, these same researchers had speculated that that this craving could be due to the low levels of progesterone at this time of the month. They gave a dose of progesterone to women who suffered severe premenstrual syndrome (PMS) as part of the treatment for PMS. If the theory was correct, then this treatment should also reduce the cravings for chocolate. There was a slight reduction in the craving for chocolate and other sweet foods, but this occurred in both the treatment group and the placebo group. In other words, the administration of progesterone didn’t seem to be the answer.

What does it all mean?

Most of the prevailing evidence suggests that both men and women like chocolate because the flavour elicits the production of endorphins (natures happy chemicals) in the brain. When people are given endorphin blockers, their desire for, and pleasure from, chocolate is greatly diminished. This research on women supports the view that pleasure is the main driver for chocolate and, maybe, the need for pleasure helps dampen any discomfort from periods. This, in turn, supports the view that chocolate should be tax deductable.

(Note: there is no evidence that your love for chocolate is due to a pharmacological effect or a nutrient deficiency. It’s a pleasure thing.)

Reference: Appetite 2009; 53: 256-259

When is a sweetener artificial?

Artificial sweeteners have been around a very long time. The first sweetener that wasn’t related to sugar or honey was created in 1878 (131 years ago). It was called saccharin. It became a sugar substitute during the sugar restrictions of WWI and WWII, later to become part of the new “dieters” drinks of the 1960s.

Sweeteners have been associated with cancer since massive amounts of saccharin given to rats caused bladder cancer. How much saccharin? About 3000 times the amount any human was likely to consume. This research has now been dismissed and in May 2000 saccharin was removed from the list of potential carcinogens.

The small, sweet protein

The most common sweetener, aspartame, was discovered in 1965 and was approved for use in food in 1983 in the US and 1985 in Australia. You will find aspartame in low joule or low sugar products that are kept cool, such as soft drinks and yogurt.

Aspartame is not really artificial because it is made of two amino acids (phenylalanine and aspartic acid), both of which are found in any food with protein, from bread to beef. And that is why it is only found in cool foods – once you heat it, being a small protein it will lose its original structure and no longer be sweet.

It is the most researched and evaluated food additive in the world, yet many have been active against its use. A lot of fuss over a small protein, or more accurately, a peptide.

No cancer risk found

The cancer-sweetener association is still prevalent. Recently, Italian researchers took a look at sweeteners and the risk of getting cancer of the stomach, pancreas and endometrium. Over 1000 cancer patients were matched with over 2000 controls to see if there was a link between sweetener use and cancer risk. The researchers concluded: “….. the present study adds further evidence on the absence of an association between low-calorie sweetener (including aspartame) consumption and the risk of common neoplasms ..…”

This is not the first paper to absolve sweeteners of cancer blame. Many other cancers have been assessed and were not associated with sweeteners. In 2006 a US study of 285,000 men and 189,000 women found no link between aspartame and leukaemia, lymphomas or brain tumours.

What does it all mean?

The evidence won’t quell the fear mongers. Occasional consumption of aspartame is very unlikely to be a health concern. Even the high end users consume well below the Acceptable Daily Intake for aspartame determined internationally by food scientists. No, food scientists don’t conspire to harm the public. They, in fact, set very high safety margins for sweeteners and other additives such that even the crazy folk who drink two litres of diet soft drink a day won’t be harmed by a sweetener (however, their tooth enamel is likely to be eroded by the acid in soft drinks).

References:

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 2009; 18 (8): 2235-2238

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 2006; 15: 1654-1659

Fruit hoaxes

Here is a law that hasn’t been broken since the internet started: Health warnings about food received via email will be a hoax. Yes, that includes those about margarine, Diet Coke, artificial sweeteners, and even the very positive one about bananas.

A recent one proclaimed that fruit should only be eaten on an empty stomach, and never after a meal. A quote from this ludicrous email: “Let’s say you eat two slices of bread and then a slice of fruit. The slice of fruit is ready to go straight through the stomach into the intestines, but is prevented from doing so. In the meantime the whole meal rots and ferments and turns to acid”.

So, let me get this right – when I eat a banana sandwich, the bread races to the pyloric sphincter (where the stomach joins the small intestine) and road blocks the banana from traveling any further? The banana then looks forlorn because it is locked in the stomach and decides to ferment to pass the time.

Embarrassingly out-of-date

This notion would have had some credibility in the 18^th century. Then, along came a bloke called William Beaumont who did a range of experiments in the 1820s on another human being called Alexis St Martin. Later Beaumont published a book in 1833 called Experiments and Observations on the Gastric Juice and the Physiology of Digestion detailing how he proved that all mixes of food was digested. Nothing rotted or fermented. Every physiology book in the 176 years since has agreed with Beaumont.

You can eat fruit any time of the day, seated or standing, in any season of the year, and in either hemisphere. Gets digested the same. Whenever you read a claim that food rots, putrefies or ferments in your guts, it is just someone going public about not having a clue about basic biology. And that is their right in a democracy. Sadly.

The fruit salad tree

Harry Tomlinson, by all accounts a good and honest bloke, awoke to find that his apple tree was now growing plums and blackberries. The tree in his garden in northern Wales had been growing apples for 30 years before other fruit appeared. He got some publicity back in 2005, with at least one journo asking a horticulturist for an explanation for the “fruit salad” tree. Then someone did the smart and obvious thing. They looked at the tree. You see, Harry was 94 years old, and his sight may not be the best. He was informed by a visiting horticulturist that the maverick fruit had been pasted on the apple tree. Harry wasn’t too pleased. “I think it’s a rotten trick” he told the BBC.

What does it all mean?

It means that some people enjoy fooling others. You have heard the old pearler about only being able to eat fruit before 12 noon. That came from Harvey and Marilyn Diamond, written in their silly book Fit for Life.

I always ask the question “Would this sound logical in a hunter-gatherer lifestyle?” In other words, does it make sense if we consider how people lived 5000 years ago? How would anyone know it is 12 noon five thousand years ago? If a protein meal offered itself early one morning, would it make sense to tell your neighbour “Leave the fish be Joe, it’s way too early to eat protein.”

The digestive tract is very clever. The body is designed to digest all types of food at any time because that made it so much easier for humans to survive.

Does organic food have more nutrients Pt2?

In my last newsletter I mentioned a report that, simply put, said that conventionally grown produce and organically grown produce had similar nutrient profiles. Just as the dust was settling on the conventional vs organic debate, another report, published in Agronomy for Sustainable Development this month, made a case for organic produce.

The new report states that organically grown fruit and vegetables tend to have higher levels of antioxidants, which may benefit human health. There is a logic here, as the antioxidants in plants are often working as nature’s natural pesticides helping the plant keep bugs at bay. If pesticides are not used by the farmer then organic fruit and vegetables have to produce more of their own version to make them less attractive to bugs.

The report also said that the mineral content did not differ between production systems, although there appeared to be higher levels of iron and magnesium in some organically grown vegetables.

Organic produce consumption is on the rise in western societies. As I mentioned in the last newsletter, if you can afford organic then support the movement. We are lucky to have the choice.

You can download the original paper here: http://www.organicconsumers.org/artman2/uploads/1/ASD_Lairon_2009.pdf

References: Agron Sustain Dev 2009; doi 10.1051/agro/2009019

Organic food has same nutrients as conventionally grown

The last time I was the messenger on this topic, three people unsubscribed in protest. Once, when I spoke about organically grown food on the radio, a lady from Tasmania kindly took the time to ring and abuse me. It is a very emotional area. Let me see if I can get the message across clearly.

A report published this month in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition came to the conclusion that organically grown produce and livestock had a similar nutrient offering to conventionally grown food. The reviewers trawled all the research for the past 50 years and found only 55 good quality research studies comparing organic and conventionally grown food, many conducted this century. The comparison did not include pesticide residue or the environmental impact.

The price is not right
In many cases, it won’t matter how you dress up organic produce because most people won’t be prepared to pay the premium price. I once inadvertently paid four times the price for organic onions. Most organic produce is at least 50% dearer that the regular type. I’m not suggesting that anyone is getting ripped-off as organic farming will be more labour intensive and therefore command a higher price. On the other hand there will only be a small number of suburbs where organic produce will sell well.

What else is relevant?
The other critical factor is that less than one in ten adults eat enough fruit and vegetables to be good for them. Most adults need to double their vegetable intake to get the benefits they provide, before they start to wonder whether they should go organic or not.

Fresh produce in Australia is tested for pesticide residues. Most farmers will ensure that they meet the withholding times to ensure they are below the Maximum Residue Limits for pesticides, which are set by international scientific agreement. At lot of fresh produce has no detectable pesticide or herbicide residue at the point of sale. All the same, this will not appease many people who prefer no pesticides to be used in the first place (and if they weren’t used then fruit and vegetables will be a lot more expensive than they are now).

What does it all mean?
If you can afford it, and you eat plenty of organic produce, then keep buying it. Many of you already are as the organic market is rapidly growing. It sends a message that you prefer food that is a little more gentle on the environment. For those of us with plenty of mouths to feed and a modest budget, then feel comfortable eating good quality conventionally grown food, as the nutrient levels are very similar to organic produce. Remember that how you look after fresh produce after it has been bought will have the greatest impact on its nutrient content. Eat fresh food as soon as you can after purchase to get the most nutrients from your meal.

References: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2009; doi 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28041