"An Apple A Day" & More: Alex Leaf's Reviews Folk Wisdom and Scientific Evidence on a Forbiddenly Healthy Fruit Item

Forbidden fruit or not: You got to love your daily apples ;-)

Guestpost by Alex Leaf

An apple a day keeps the doctor away. I’m sure you’ve heard this before. And while there are many ways in which we could keep the doctor at bay with an apple (target practice anyone?), our wellbeing demands we eat the luscious fruit. Truthfully, the old adage could not be truer for a variety of reasons. So to keep things organized I am going to worm through the benefits of apples categorically. Also remember we are dealing with the apple fruit, not the apple fritter or apple flavored candy or the iPhone.

I suppose the best starting point is the apple’s nutritional worth. As you can see in the nutritional label to the right, a single medium apple is less than 100 Calories and provides over 10% of the RDA for fiber. Apples also contain every vitamin needed by the body with the exception of Vitamin B12, which is only found in animal products, and Vitamin D, which you can produce by eating your apple under the sun. The same applies to minerals, with apples providing a little of everything except selenium.

A hearty bite for a healthy heart

If you have ever looked at an apple you may have noticed it resembles the humble heart, and for good reason. A comprehensive review of nine human studies conducted by researchers at the British Nutrition Foundation in London examined the effects of apples on cardiovascular disease risk factors and found that apple polyphenols, a type of antioxidant, have a positive influence on blood lipids and blood pressure in human beings (Weichselbaum, Wyness and Stanner 2010). Furthermore, don’t think that apple juice has you covered, since these compounds are most concentrated in the peel of the apple (Wolfe, Wu and Liu 2003). In fact, whole apples have an average of 57 times more polyphenols than commercial apple juice (Hyson 2011; cf. Figure 1).

Figure 1: Phenols in whole apples vs. juices (Markowski. 2005)

Not for juicers (addendum by Adel)! I won't tire and repeat it once again. If you want to eat fruit, do so - EAT it, don't juice it, or buy juices from the supermarket. Why? Just take a  look at the phenol loss in juices in Figure 1 and you have your answer.

I know that some of you are juice-o-holoics, so in case you still insist on juicing, keep the pomace and throw away the juice, not the other way around ;-)

Okay, so heart health is from the antioxidants in apples and I can get those in any fruit or vegetable. Well, not quite. In one study of nonsmoking healthy middle-age adults who ate apples less than twice a month, simply eating one apple per day lowered blood levels of oxidized LDL – a substance linked to hardening of the arteries – by 40% (Ohio State University 2012). And it’s not just because of the polyphenols either, since a group in this study that took a polyphenol supplement instead of eating the apple had similar but not as pronounced effects. Even dried apples show promise, with a separate study concluding that daily dried apple consumption “can significantly lower atherogenic cholesterol levels” (Chai, et al. 2012). The only caveat is that you need to eat the equivalent of two apples per day if dried rather than fresh.

Apples can help with weight management and protect against cancer

In a very recent study, researchers from the University of Navarra in Spain sought to determine the mechanisms through which the beneficial effects of apple polyphenols act on diet-induced obesity (Boqué, et al. 2013). Overall, they found that apple polyphenols exerted potent anti-obesity and anti-diabetic effects through prevention of fat cell growth, decreased intestinal glucose uptake, and increased fat breakdown. These effects were observed at both the surface and genetic level. The researchers even conclude their study with the acknowledgement that apple polyphenols can act “as a promising functional food ingredient for the management of obesity and its metabolic complications”.

Figure 2: Vitamin & Mineral content of one large apple relative to RDA. Data based on USDA food database for 09003, Apples, raw, with skin (USDA. 2013) - left;  Nutritional label of one raw apple with skin - right (skipthepie.org. 2013)

A review summarizing the current knowledge on potential cancer preventive effects of apples conducted by a lone researcher at the German Cancer Research Center in Germany found that apples influence multiple mechanisms relevant for cancer prevention on the genetic level, and regular consumption of one (or more) apple per day has been shown to prevent skin, breast, and colon cancer (Gerhauser 2008). And it all comes back to the whole fruit, with some of the most potent anti-cancer compounds residing in the peel (Cornell University 2007).

Apples can do even more!

The antioxidants in apples have been shown to extend the average lifespan of fruit flies by 10% (American Chemical Society 2011). Granted the relevance to humans is debatable, but it’s interesting nonetheless. Apple polyphenols may even provide protection against some autoimmune diseases such as ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology 2011). Another unique compound found in apple peels, ursolic acid, prevents muscle loss during illness and aging, and “animals given ursolic acid also became leaner and had lower blood levels of glucose, cholesterol and triglycerides” (Cell Press 2011).

And it doesn’t end there. In a review and analysis of apples and related compounds, Dianne Hyson (Hyson 2011) from the Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, California State University concluded that, There are current data suggesting that [apple polyphenols] might be linked to reduced risk of several forms of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and asthma. [Apple polyphenols] may also have beneficial effects on outcomes related to Alzheimer’s disease, cognitive decline of normal aging, diabetes, weight management, bone health, and gastrointestinal protection from drug injury.

Red Delicious is king, when it comes to its antioxidant power.

Talk about natural medicine! While everyone has their own apple preferences, some of us may want to know how to capitalize on this apple investment. If that’s the case, then I present the Red Delicious apple. Studying the antioxidant amounts of every apple variety would be difficult, but less broad comparisons have been done. One of these studies looked at eight popular apple varieties grown on the same farm under similar conditions and found that the Red Delicious had the most antioxidant activity (American Chemical Society 2005).

This makes sense when you think back to “eating the rainbow” in fruits and vegetables, since the above study also found the antioxidants to be five times higher in the skin than the flesh of the apples, and Red Delicious apples are renowned for their seductive red coating. It’s also better to go organic with this one as organic apples have on average higher antioxidant capacity than their conventional counterparts (Stracke, et al. 2009). So if you ever needed more reasoning for heading down to farmer Joe…

Oh, and before I forget. Apples are harvested in the fall, which makes local organic difficult to find during other times of the year. Usually, a bunch of apples will be picked and stored through the winter until the next harvest. Fret not, since “long-term storage, both at refrigerator temperature and under controlled atmosphere conditions, was found not to influence flavonoid concentration or antioxidant activity” (van der Sluis, et al. 2001) of the apple.

Emotional Eating

Have your head in the clouds from choosing to eat that apple with lunch? I’m not surprised, given that recent research has shown that eating fruit and vegetables may promote emotional wellbeing (White, Horwath and Conner 2013). More specifically, “on days when people ate more fruits and vegetables, they reported feeling calmer, happier and more energetic than they normally did" (IANS 2013). Even just eating apples in everyday life has been shown to reduce hunger and elevate mood (Macht and Dettmer 2006). Eating more apples isn’t challenging either. Actually, it’s as simple as buying a new fruit bowl. People are more likely to eat apples when they are visible and easily accessible (Privitera and Creary 2012). So keep your fruits close, and your apples closer. Especially during stressful times, as you may find yourself a little less anxious (Hyson 2011).

Promise me! Never throw away the pomace, if you insist on juicing your apples, then keep the pomace in whatever the result may be. This is where all the good stuff is and this is what made the difference between a 5% reduction in type II diabetes risk for apple eaters and a 8% increase in type II diabetes risk for apple (and other) juice drinkers in a recent analysis of three prospective longitudinal cohort studies by Muraki et al. (2013).

Bottom line (by Adel): If you are not convinced of the benefits of apples (not Apple!), yet, you may want to have a parting look at a study that made a direct comparison between statins and apples with respect to their cardio- and stroke-protective effects in otherwise healthy adults over 50 years.

The results of the model the scientists fed with data from previous studies are quite astonishing: With a assumed compliance of 70% compliance in the "an apple a day" arm of the study, the scientists except a reduction in vascular mortality of 12%. Now, allegedly that's based on the estimate that this would be the necessary consequence of the "apple-induced" reduction in low density lipoprotein... but alas, it's better than the hilarious and obviously 100% irrelevant witch-hunt on apples and other "high fructose fruit items" *rofl* - I mean, I find it "lustig" (German word for "funny") that people believe that someone would develop diabetes & NAFLD from eating whole apples.

References:

• American Chemical Society. Eating apples extends lifespan of test animals by 10 percent. March 8, 2011. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110302121702.htm (accessed May 13, 2013). 
• —. Red Delicious, Northern Spy Apples Have Most Antioxidants, Chemists Find. May 23, 2005. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050523234141.htm (accessed May 16, 2013). 
• Boqué, Noemi, et al. "Prevention of diet-induced obesity by apple polyphenols in Wistar rats through regulation of adipocyte gene expression and DNA methylation patterns." Molecular Nutrition & Food Research, 2013: [ePub ahead of print].
• Cell Press. Apple Ingredient Keeps Muscles Strong: Component of Apple Peels Found to Help Prevent Muscle Weakening in Mice. June 7, 2011. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110607131718.htm (accessed May 13, 2013).
• Chai, S C, S Hooshmand, R L Saadat, M E Payton, K Brummel-Smith, and B H Arjmandi. "Daily apple versus dried plum: impact on cardiovascular disease risk factors in postmenopausal women." J Acad Nutr Diet 112, no. 8 (2012): 1158-1168.
• Cornell University. An Apple Peel A Day Might Keep Cancer At Bay. June 3, 2007. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070601181005.htm (accessed May 13, 2013).
  Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. Scientists discover anti-inflammatory polyphenols in apple peels. December 15, 2011. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111130100455.htm (accessed May 13, 2013).
• Gerhauser, Clarissa. "Cancer Chemopreventive Potential of Apples, Apple Juice, and Apple Components." Planta Medica 74, no. 13 (2008): 1608-1624.
• Hyson, Dianne A. "A Comprehensive Review of Apples and Apple Components and Their Relationship to Human Health." Advances in Nutrition 2, no. 5 (2011): 408-420.
  IANS. Eating fruits, vegetables linked to emotional well being. January 30, 2013. http://cooks.ndtv.com/article/show/eating-fruits-vegetables-linked-to-emotional-well-being-321793 (accessed May 16, 2013).
• Macht, M, and D Dettmer. "Everyday mood and emotions after eating a chocolate bar or an apple." Appetite 46, no. 3 (2006): 332-336. 
• Markowski, J., W. Plocharski, and M. Mieszczakowska. "Effect of cultivar and processing on phenolics and antioxidant activity of apple products." I International Symposium on Human Health Effects of Fruits and Vegetables 744. 2005.
• Muraki, Isao, et al. "Fruit consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes: results from three prospective longitudinal cohort studies." BMJ: British Medical Journal 347 (2013).
• Nutritional Info: Raw Apple with skin. 2013. http://skipthepie.org/fruits-and-fruit-juices/apples-raw-with-skin/?weight=182 (accessed May 2, 2013). 
• Ohio State University. An apple a day lowers level of blood chemical linked to hardening of the arteries, research suggests. October 2, 2012. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121002143220.htm (accessed May 13, 2013).
• Privitera, G J, and H E Creary. "Proximity and Visibility of Fruits and Vegetables Influence Intake in a Kitchen Setting Among College Students." Environment and Behavior, 2012.
  Stracke, B A, C E Rüfer, F P Weibel, A Bub, and B Watzl. "Three-year comparison of the polyphenol contents and antioxidant capacities in organically and conventionally produced apples ( Malus domestica Bork. Cultivar 'Golden Delicious')." J Agric Food Chem 57, no. 11 (2009): 4598-4605.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture. "USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 26." 2013.
• van der Sluis, A A, M Dekker, A de Jager, and W M Jongen. "Activity and concentration of polyphenolic antioxidants in apple: effect of cultivar, harvest year, and storage conditions." J Agric Food Chem 49, no. 8 (2001): 3606-3613. 
• Weichselbaum, E, L Wyness, and S Stanner. "Apple polyphenols and cardiovascular disease – a review of the evidence." Nutrition Bulletin 35, no. 2 (2010): 92-101.
• White, Bonnie A, Caroline C Horwath, and Tamlin S Conner. "Many apples a day keep the blues away – Daily experiences of negative and positive affect and food consumption in young adults." British Journal of Health Psychology, January 2013.
• Wolfe, Kelly, Xianzhong Wu, and Rui Hai Liu. "Antioxidant Activity of Apple Peels." J. Agric. Food Chem 51, no. 3 (2003): 609-614.

Dairy - The Good, the Bad or The Ugly? Latest Studies On Heart Disease, Diabetes, Cancer, Obesity and Co. Plus: What Dairy Peptides Do For Your Heart, Gut, Brain, etc.

Do you take Liz Hurley's word and set all warnings about the "non-paleo-ness" of dairy in general and milk in particular at naught? Or do you put faith into the "got milk?" campaign? Personally, I'd suggest not to do one or the other. I'd rather suggest you join me and take a look at a selection of recent studies.

If you've been following the SuppVersity Facebook News and / or have read previous SuppVersity articles on milk and dairy, you will be aware that I am not exactly convinced that the mere existence of allergic reactions and the "fact" that "our ancestors did not drink milk before ..." *put your favorite guesstimate here* allows for the conclusion that we are "not meant" to consume cow's milk. I am nevertheless open to scientific arguments that would convince me that dairy is bad for me - it's just that I don't see this evidence outside of "western diet + dairy makes you fat and that makes you sick" contexts.

What I do see, though, are papers such as the one Sandra Abreu or the recent review by Flávia Galvão Cândido et al. - studies that tell us that the intake of milk is negatively associated with the clustering of cardiometabolic risk factors in adolescents (Abreu. 2013), and reviews which conclude that "the consumption of low-fat dairy products may be an important strategy to prevent and control T2DM [type 2 diabetes]" (Cândido. 2013).

The evidence that dairy is bad for us all is simply not there

But hey, ... let's tackle the evidence one by one. I mean, there is plenty of news-worthy material here and we don't want the fun to be over prematurely, do we? So, let's start with a brief sketch of what Sandra Abreu and her colleagues from the University of Porto base their assessment that the intake of milk, but not total dairy, yogurt, or cheese, is negatively associated with the clustering of cardiometabolic risk factors in Spanish adolescents - shall we?

No! Full-fat dairy is not bad for you: While most of the epidemiological studies with their hilariously unreliable food questionnaires appear to suggest that only low fat dairy was good for your heart, a recent study from the Harvard School of Public Health found a clever way to test the association more objectively. Instead of questioning their subjects, 2837 US adults aged 45 to 84 years, they tested the amount of certain phospholipids in their blood and found that "plasma phospholipid 15:0, a biomarker of dairy fat, was inversely associated with incident CVD [-19%] and CHD [-26%]." (de Oliveira Otto. 2013) The fact that other dairy related phospholipids were not associated (neither positive nor negative) with cardiovascular and coronary heart disease risk does yet, as the scientists rightly point out, warrant further investigation.

"To test th[e] hypothesis [that a higher dairy product intake is associated with lower cardiometabolic risk factor clustering in adolescents], a cross-sectional study was conducted with 494 adolescents aged 15 to 18 years from the Azorean Archipelago, Portugal. We measured fasting glucose, insulin, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, body fat, and cardiorespiratory fitness. We also calculated homeostatic model assessment and total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio. For each one of these variables, a z score was computed using age and sex. A cardiometabolic risk score (CMRS) was constructed by summing up the z scores of all individual risk factors. High risk was considered to exist when an individual had at least 1 SD from this score. Diet was evaluated using a food frequency questionnaire, and the intake of total dairy (included milk, yogurt, and cheese), milk, yogurt, and cheese was categorized as low (equal to or below the median of the total sample) or “appropriate” (above the median of the total sample). The association between dairy product intake and CMRS was evaluated using separate logistic regression, and the results were adjusted for confounders." (Abreu. 2013)

I know that sounds really sophisticated, but in the end, it's just standard procedure for cross-sectional studies like this - studies with one unfortunate downside: It's impossible to detect causal relationships. 

Figure 1: Dietary intake in the low and "adequate" dairy-, milk-, yogurt-intake groups (Abreu. 2013)

Keep that in mind, when you take a closer look at the data in Figure 2 which indicates that the average adolescent milk connoisseur of whom you can see in Figure 1 that he / she consumes significantly more energy on a daily basis has a significantly reduced cardiometabolic risk (predicted by cardiometabolic risk score; CMRS):

Figure 2: Cardiometabolic risk in "adequate" vs. low dairy, milk, yogurt and cheese consuming adolescents; adjusted for parental education , pubertal stage, low-energy reporter, energy intake, total fat , protein , and dietary fiber intake.

I personally was surprised to see a statistically significant protective effect only with milk - it's not that I had expected to see that for all forms of dairy, but based on previous studies I would have expected the fermented yogurt products to outperform conventional milk.

The negative effects of cheese on the other hand are by no means surprising. Food logs do after all include all types of "cheese" including the fake yellow vegetable oil based cheese analogues the kids shovel down with their pizzas, burgers and the rest of the fast food dirt. A high cheese intake has thus (unfortunately) become an indicator of low diet quality and the results of the study at hand hardly a credible marker that cheese is bad for you.

If 95% of your "dairy intake" comes from pizza, you are unlikely to see...

... any of the following benefits of dairy peptides, Blanca Hernández-Ledesma, María José García-Nebot, Samuel Fernández-Tomé, Lourdes Amigo, and Isidra Recio summarized in a soon-to-be-published review in the peer-reviewed scientific journal International Dairy Science:

• 

  Figure 3: Reduction of systolic blood pressure in mmHg per mg/kg of the said peptide you consume - mind the logarithmic scale(!); data calculated based on rodent studies summarized in Hernández-Ledesma (2014)

  Cardiovascular health effects due to the antihypertensive, anti-inflammatory, general antioxidant and hypocholesterolaemic properties of various dairy peptides
• Intestinal health effects due to the ability of dairy peptides to modulate and regenerate the gut mucosa, increase mineral absorption, exert local anti-inflammatory effects at the gastrointestinal level
• Antidiabesity effects that are related to both direct pro-insulinogenic effects of dairy peptides ant their ability to increase satiety. 
• Central nervous system relaxant and antinociceptive (pain-killing) effects
• Immune health which is promoted by antimicrobial and immunomodulatory peptides that are either already present in dairy or arise during the digestion process
• Anticancer effects that are mediated by the overall anti-inflammatory properties of certain dairy peptides, as well as direct anti-proliferative effects of dairy

Now, it goes without saying that you won't see the same effect from eating some goat kefir as Miguel et al. (2010) observed it, when they administered fraction 58-68 of goat casein to their lab rodents, but the data in Figure 3 can explain the well-established blood pressure lowering effects of dairy in general and the whey and casein induced BP reduction Figueroa et al. observed only recently in a study with obese women (Figueroa. 2013; see SuppVersity Facebook News).

Bottom line: You can't expect dairy to fully protect you against diabesity, cancer and a leaky, you can't expect it to lean you out in days, and you can't expect it to build muscle overnight, but you can expect general health benefits not detriments from incorporating a variety of fermented and unfermented dairy products into your diet - as long as you ain't lactose intolerant.

"Are Camels the Better Cows? Cancer, CVD, Allergies,Infections & More - Camel Milk Prevents or Fixes All These Ailments" | more

One thing you should keep in mind, though, is the unfortunate fact that the amount of "non-dairy" cheese, cream and other products is increasing by the day. Especially the former, the fake yellow vegetable oil based cheese analogues is something you want to avoid. The same goes for many of low fat products. While much of the "magic" is in the peptides, most of the commercially available "diet" products contain tons of sugar and all sorts of questionable additive to make up for the loss of color, taste and texture that's brought about by the removal of the fat. And lastly all products that extend the shelf-life to "eternity" by adding questionable preservatives.

References

• Abreu, S., Moreira, P., Moreira, C., Mota, J., Moreira-Silva, I., Santos, P. C., & Santos, R. (2013). Intake of milk, but not total dairy, yogurt, or cheese, is negatively associated with the clustering of cardiometabolic risk factors in adolescents. Nutrition Research.
• Cândido, F.G., Ton, T. S., & Alfenas, R. D. C. G. (2013). Dairy products consumption versus type 2 diabetes prevention and treatment; a review of recent findings from human studies. Nutr Hosp, 28(5), 1384-1395.
• de Oliveira Otto, M. C., Nettleton, J. A., Lemaitre, R. N., Steffen, L. M., Kromhout, D., Rich, S. S., ... & Mozaffarian, D. (2013). Biomarkers of dairy fatty acids and risk of cardiovascular disease in the multi‐ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Journal of the American Heart Association, 2(4), e000092.
• Figueroa, A., Wong, A., Kinsey, A., Kalfon, R., Eddy, W., & Ormsbee, M. J. (2013). Effects of Milk Proteins and Combined Exercise Training on Aortic Hemodynamics and Arterial Stiffness in Young Obese Women With High Blood Pressure. American Journal of Hypertension, hpt224. 
• Freedman, B. J. (1980). Sulphur dioxide in foods and beverages: its use as a preservative and its effect on asthma. British Journal of Diseases of the Chest, 74, 128-134.
• Hernández-Ledesma, B., García-Nebot, M.J., Fernández-Tomé, S., Amigo, L.,
  Recio, I., Dairy protein hydrolysates: Peptides for health benefits, International Dairy Journal(2014), ahead of print
• Iammarino, M., Di Taranto, A., Palermo, C., & Muscarella, M. (2011). Survey of benzoic acid in cheeses: contribution to the estimation of an admissible maximum limit. Food Additives and Contaminants: Part B, 4(4), 231-237.

Fructose-Nation: No Change in Fructose Availability in the US Since the Early 1970s. So Why Are We Fat, Then?

From fat to Fructose - just another scapegoat for a fundamental problem?

Over the past 5 years or so, the idea that that fructose is to blame for the ever-increasing rates of diabesity has become so popular that hypotheses such as "the fructose consumption has exploded over the past decade" are usually accepted as scientifically verified facts.

A recent paper from the Department of Nutrition and Health Sciences at the University of Nebraska did now remind me that not all things that appear logical and consistent with our believes are necessarily true.

Do we even consume that much fructose?

As Trevor J Carden and Timothy P Carr point out, "the consumption pattern of fructose and other key nutrients" in the past 4 decades, "remains a topic of debate" (Carden. 2013). To determine whether fructose consumption in the US has increased sufficiently to be a casual factor in the rise in obesity prevalence Carden and Carr analyzed the USDA Loss-Adjusted Food Availability Database.

The researchers found that the food availability of glucose and fat, but not fructose, increased in the US between 1970 and 2009.

To calculate the percent change in energy from food groups and individual nutrients, Carden and Carr started initially compiled the available data on the per capita loss-adjusted food availability for 132 individual items were. In a second step they analyzed the corresponding nutrient profiles and used their findings to determine the availability of energy as well as macronutrients and monosaccharides during the years 1970-2009. By comparing the values for a given year to the baselinen in 1970, they did eventually determine the percent change in energy from food groups and individual nutrients.

Figure 1: Change in food energy availability per capita, 1970-2009 (Carden. 2013)

If you take a glance at the data in Figure 1 it's easy to see that their findings indicate that during this 40 year period the total energy availability increased by +10.7%. In that, the main "offenders" were grains and oils, the net change in total fructose availability, on the other hand was 0% - in other words, the added sweeteners (1%) were not even fructose based. Furthermore, Carden and Carr observed that the ...

"[e]nergy available from total glucose (from all digestible food sources) increased 13.0% [and ended up being] more than 3-times greater than fructose." (Carden. 2013)

With 14.6%, the amount of fat increased to a very similar extend as that of glucose. That's a 3x higher increase than for protein (+4.7) and am 1.6x higher increase in energy availability than for carbohydrates ,in general (+9.8).

So, it's the fat and sugar that's to blame? Not the fructose?

Despite the fact that I am not particular fond of the "fructose theory of everything evil", I believe that we got to be cautious about the significance of Trevor J Garden's and Timothy P Carr's conclusion, that their data would "suggest" that fructose is "unlikely to have been a unique causal factor in the increased obesity prevalence". If you take a look at the supplemental data they provided you will find, that their list of 132 foods used to calculate USDA food availability, i.e.

• Head Lettuce
• Kale
• Lima Beans
• Whole flavored milk
• Buttermilk
• Lowfat flavored milk
• Plain 1-percent milk
• Plain 2-percent milk
• Skim milk
• Eggnog and Half and Half (dairy and fat share of)
• Sour cream
• Yogurt
• Cheeses
• Lowfat cottage cheese
• Reg. cottage cheese
• Frozen yogurt and other misc
• Ice cream
• Lowfat ice cream
• Condensed bulk and canned skim milk
• Condensed bulk whole milk
• Condensed canned whole milk
• Dry buttermilk
• Dry whole milk
• Nonfat dry milk
• Barley products
• Corn flour and meal
• Corn hominy and grits
• Corn starch
• Durum flour
• Oat products
• Rice
• Rye flour
• White and whole wheat flour
• Beef
• Lamb
• Pork
• Veal
• Chicken
• Turkey
• Fish and Shellfish
• Eggs

• Great N. Beans
• Butter
• Edible beef tallow
• Lard
• Margarine
• Other edible fats and oils
• Salad and cooking oils
• Shortening
• Beer
• Wine
• Distilled Spirits
• Garlic
• Frozen Veggies
• Mushrooms
• Mustard Greens
• Navy Beans
• Okra
• Onions
• Canned Veggies
• Other Dry Beans
• Peas and Lentils
• Pinto Beans
• Potatoes
• Pumpkin
• Radishes
• Red Kidney Beans
• Lettuce
• Snap Beans
• Spinach
• Squash
• Sweet Corn
• Sweet Potatoes
• Tomatoes
• Turnip Greens
• Peanuts
• Tree Nuts
• Coconuts
• Refined sugar
• Dextrose
• Glucose
• HFCS
• Edible syrups
• Honey
• Plain whole milk
• Green Peas

• Collard Greens
• Avacado
• Bananas
• Blackberries
• Blueberries
• Canteloup
• Cherries
• Cranberries
• Dates
• Figs
• Grapefruit
• Grapes
• Honeydew
• Kiwifruit
• Lemons
• Limes
• Mangos
• Olives
• Oranges
• Frozen Berries
• Papayas
• Peaches
• Pears
• Pineapple
• Plums and Prunes
• Raisins
• Raspberries
• Stawberries
• Tangerines
• Watermelon
• Artichokes
• Asparagus
• Bell Peppers
• Black Beans
• Broccoli
• Brussel Sprouts
• Cabbage
• Carrots
• Cauliflower
• Celery
• Cucumbers
• Eggplant
• Apples
• Apricots
• Chili Peppers
• Escarole & Endive

... is representative of the variety of foods US citizens eat, but it does not tell you which of these foods, they will eventually select. Let's take apples, coconuts, and white and whole wheat flour as an example triplet. I guess if you had to rank them according to their contribution to the total energy intake of the average US citizen, none of you would hesitate to give me an answer like this: "White and whole wheat flour > apples > coconuts". Without the corresponding "weights" that would tell the scientists that white and whole wheat flour has a 10x higher impact on the average macronutrient composition of the average American diet, we be talking about the nutrient and fructose availability, not the actual intakes.

Better treat the data with the appropriate caution

Unfortunately, the scientists provide only rudimentary information about the impact of food choices, i.e. how much of the items listed above, the average US citizen actually consumes, namely:

• The food categories that increased the most during this time were grains and fats/oils, having increased 24.2% and 25.3%, respectively. 
• Caloric sweeteners (including both sucrose and HFCS) increased a modest 1.3%. 

With respect to the sweeteners Carden and Carr emphasize that the "sugar" availability, or as they put it the "monosaccharides available for metabolic absorption" is more than 3x higher than that of fructose.

In other words: Despite the fact that fructose appears to have become ubiquitous, overeating on plain sugar is still 3x easier. That this does not imply that you cannot do so, is the main and in my humble opinion crucial problem Carden and Carr fail to address. The result of their study do after all not exclude that a significant parts of the US population increased their fructose intake, in spit of the fact that its availability remained essentially the same.

The availability of a given nutrient on the shelves of US supermarket may provide a realistic image of the diets of a society of identical clones, who wheel their carts back and forth through the whole supermarket and buy foods from all each and every shelf. The "real" American, however, is no clone. On the contrary! He has his preferences and for a large part of the society these preferences can be found in the "highly processed, high sugar, high fat"-shelves of the super market. He does not care about the coconuts, apples, kale, mushrooms, olives and all the other foods in the "whole foods" section of the supermarket. They are available, but not what he is looking for.

Figure 2: The increase in total energy intake is one of the most fundamental contributers to the obesity epidemic (adapted from Carden. 2013)

Bottom Line: Despte the disconnect between availability and consumption you will be hard pressed to debate the scientists' conclusion that "increased total energy intake, due to increased availability of foods providing glucose (primarily as starch in grains) and fat" are the major contributors to the increased obesity in the US.

What is annoying, though, is the fact that a vast majority of the researchers fails to realize that their studies already account for the obesogenic effects of nutrient density. The average "high fat diets are bad for ..." is after all based on experiments, where animals or humans are fed diets that are high in both fat and carbohydrates.

Despite the fact that these studies provide a realistic portrayal of the average Western diet, the messages people infer, when they read about these results in the mainstream media is flawed.

It's not about eating less, fat, fructose, sugar or whatever scapegoat the author of the corresponding article believes was to blame for our misery. It's about nothing else than turning our whole way of eating upside down. It's about the right foods, not the right macros and it's about moderation and mindfulness.

References:

• Carden, T. J., & Carr, T. P. (2013). Food availability of glucose and fat, but not fructose, increased in the US between 1970 and 2009: analysis of the USDA food availability data system. Nutrition journal, 12(1), 130.

Pimp My Olive Oil! When Virgin is not Phenol-Rich Enough: The Pharmacokinetics of Phenol-Enriched Virgin Olive Oil.

Image 1:  "If we have not somehow pimped it, it can never be good enough!" appears to be one of the credos with which mankind approaches almost every health-remedy nature has provided for us. In the past this approach was not particularly healthy, though... is phenol-enriched olive oil going to be the exception to the rule?

Being the health-conscious person you obviously are (why else would you visit the SuppVersity ;-), chances are that olive oil, or, to be specific, extra virgin olive oil is one if not primary source of of mono- and polyunsaturated fats in your diet. But do you actually know why? I mean why olive oil? And why extra virgin? What? "Mediterranean diet", "high MUFA content", "lower incidence of coronary heart disease and cancer"? All right, you have done your homework on olive oil, but what about the "extra virgin"? The polyphenols, right. The phenolic content is in fact what distinguishes a "good" olive oil. The phenolic alcohols, the secoiridoid derivatives, the phenolic acids, the lignans and the flavonoids in concert have been reported to have anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-atherogenic and anti-carcineogenic properties and are probably as, if not more important for the beneficial health effects of the Mediterranean gold than its fatty acid profile (Covas. 2007; Covas. 2008).

So, if those polyphenols are the "active ingredients" in olive oil, wouldn't it be nice if we had an oil that had even more of these beneficial healthy secondary plant metabolits in our oils, right?

Now we have tons of polyphenols, but does that make a difference?

The thought, that a souped up version of the already phenol-rich virgin olive oil would be an even more potent health promoter must have occurred to a group of researcher from Spain, as well. Back in 2010 already, Manual Suárez and his coworkers published a paper in the Journal of Argiculture and Food Chemistry in which they describe the development of a "phenol-enriched olive oil with phenolic compounds from olive cake" (Suárez. 2010). In essence, the scientists just put back some of the pulp (an extract to be precise) that is produced when the oil is squeezed from the olives into the end-product. In a more recent study the scientists did now try to evaluate how much of these (additional) health promoters in 30ml of regular virgin olive oil (VO) and the enhanced virgin olive oil (EVOO) actually make it into the blood of 16 (8 men, 8 women) healthy subjects in a randomized, controlled, cross-over trial (Suárez. 2011).

Figure 1: Compositional differences (phenol-enriched vs. standard virgin olive oil) in polyphenol content (data calculated based on Suárez. 2011)

If you take a look at the compositional differences between the regular and the "phenol-enriched" virgin olive oil, it is quite obvious that, from a mere quantitative point of view, Suárez' product with on average 3.3x more secondary plant metabolits should be the more potent health promoter. After all, numerous previous studies have shown that those olive oils with (naturally!) particularly high phenol-content exhibit the most pronounced beneficial health effects (Samanego Sanchéz. 2007). This would yet require adequate absorption of the respective compounds from a now obviously more dense solution, which, according to the results of this study, does not seem to be the case for all compounds - and more importantly, all subjects:

The in vivo study showed that the concentration of fourteen of twenty-four compounds detected was higher in the plasma samples from the EVOO than after ingestion of VOO. Among these, two of them, hydroxytyrosol sulphate and vanil-lin sulphate, were statistically significant in attending their pharmacokinetic parameters, demonstrating the suitability of enrichment. In general, a displacement of the time to reach the maximum concentration is observed in the samples, which indicates that more time is needed to absorb the higher phenolic content. However, inter-individual variabilityin the concentration of the plasma phenol metabolites shows that it is difficult to show statistically significant differences between the VOO and the EVOO.

The scientists thusly conclude that the "metabolism of phenols is affected first by the individual". So until we actually know which influence these are, the label "phenol-enriched" on olive oils and other products has little meaning for you as an individual. And even if you belong to the "lucky" high-absorbers, only two, namely vanillin sulphate and hydroxytyrosol sulphate will reach what the scientists call "pharmocokinetic" levels, if you ingest two tablespoons of the super-potent "phenol-enriched" virgin (and still relatively natural) olive oil.

Figure 2: Changes in total antioxidant activity (TAA) of experimental oils subsequent to heat treatment (from Pellegrini. 2001)

Note: Common Internet wisdom would suggest that you have to be particularly cautious with those "phenol-enriched virgin olive oils", when respective products hit the market (and I bet this won't take long). After all, you will all have heard how heating those oils damages the healthy polyphenols - and while that may to some extend be the case, a 2001 study by Nicoletta Pellegrini et al. found that the total antioxidant value of olive oil does not only increase with increased polyphenol content, but that those polyphenols are also "stabilizers of R-tocopherol during olive oil heating, thus contributing to the nutritional value of cooked foods" and "the prevention of antioxidant activity decay in olive oil during realistic heating conditions" (Pellegrini. 2001), which ranged from 30min at 160°C to 120min at 190°C. The latter happens to be at the upper end of the regular deep-frying temperature and would thus suggest that the commonly heard recommendation not to use extra virgin olive oil for frying is not valid, at least when we focus exclusively on its total antioxidant capacity as measured by Trolox essays (cf. figure 2). In that it should be mentioned that, with its relatively high content of highly oxidizable omega-6 fats, olive oil still isn't the "ideal" frying oil - notwithstanding that frying does not constitute the healthiest way of preparing your food anyways ;-)

And though a recent study has shown that the latter conjugates with LDL and thusly protects it from oxidative damage (González-Santiago. 2010), it remains to be verified whether the consumer variety of the olive oil in this study will actually provide any health benefits. And this is particularly true in view of the fact that the food giants will, as they already do it in the case of "normal" virgin olive oil, minuscule amounts this probably expensive ingredient into their otherwise unhealthy convenient products, just to be able to put the highly marketable "contains phenol-enriched virgin olive oil" on the label... but, hey! I guess, this is just the never-ending story of complete nutritional idiocy ;-)

Are You ABCDE-Deficient? Common Nutrient Deficiencies in the US. Plus: How Food Fortification & New "Daily Values" Affect the Intakes of Vitamin A-E, Calcium Iron & Co

Nutrition labels on fresh blueberries - do we really need them?

I sill remember that I was shocked, when I bought a pack of blueberries and found a nutrition label underneath the plastic cover of my expensive 150g health-investement...

That's probably 2 months ago and the reason I do remember this event now is the publication of a paper that examines the effect a change in the "daily values" (i.e. the references), the figures in the obiquitous black and white table are based on, would have on the average US citizen's nutritional intake of the vitamins A, D, E, C, B-12 and folate, and the minerals calcium and iron.

"Daily Values" (DV), fortified foods and nutrient adequacy: Before I dig deeper into the actual study results, it's probably wise to point out that fortified foods are the link between the DV's and micro-nutrient intake of the average American. If manufacturers continue to fortify foods to the same %DV for each nutrient, the extent to which potential changes in DVs would affect nutrient intake adequacy depends on the proportion of nutrient intakes derived from fortified foods and the magnitude and direction of change in the DV.

According to the data Mary M. Murphy and her colleagues from the National Institutes of Health/Office of Dietary Supplements present in their latest paper, there is still a large gap between the current DV values, which represent the RDAs (recommended daily allowances) from 1968 and have been matched to

"the highest level of intake judged to be adequate to meet the known nutrient needs of practically all healthy persons in a specific age-gender group" (Murphy. 2013)

on the one hand, and supposedly "improved" candidates that could replace them: The population weighed and the population coverage varieties of the RDA & EAR.

• RDA = the average daily dietary nutrient intake level that is sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (97–98%) healthy individuals in a particular life-stage and gender group
• EAR = the average daily nutrient intake level that is estimated to meet the requirements of half of the healthy individuals in a particular life-stage and gender group

As you can see in Table 1 these new recommendations are not - as you may have expected -  significantly higher than the current daily values. If you look closely, you will in fact notice that some of them are significantly lower!

Table 1: Current DVs for select vitamins and minerals and potential DVs based on population-weighted and population-coverage RDAs and EARs. AT,a-tocopherol; DV, Daily Value; EAR, Estimated Average Requirement; RAE, retinol activity equivalent; RE, retinol equivalent (Murphy. 2013).

In the case of vitamin B12 and copper, for example, the difference between the "reformed" recommendations would amount to -50%. The population-coverage RDA for vitamin C, on the other hand, is 50% higher than the old "daily values" (DV) and still more than 10x lower than the 1,000mg of ascorbic acid, of which you may have read on the Internet that it was the bare minimum intake of vitamin C (more about vitamin C).

Figure 1: Percentage of U.S. population aged >4y with dietary intakes below the EAR based on current intakes and assuming
constant %DVs in fortified foods under the current, as well as two potential DV scenarios, i.e. the population-weighed EARs or the population-coverage RDAs become the revised DV values (Murphy. 2013)

Irrespective of the "low" RDA and the high number of fortified foods, ascorbic acid is yet still one of the those micro-nutrients the diets of more than 40% of the US are deficient in. And as the overview in Figure 1 goes to tell you, this would not change, if any of the new RDAs or EARs became the new DVs, so that the amounts of vitamin C in fortified food was adjusted.

Not an improvement by any means

In a more thorough sub-analysis, the scientists observed that the differences in the proportion of the total population with usual intakes less than the EAR would be <2% of 5 out of 8 nutrients (vitamins D, E, and B-12; folate; iron), regardless of whether the policy makers sued the population weighted EARs or the population-coverage RDAs as a basis for the revision of the DVs.

To put it plainy: This means that the micronutrient intake of more then 3 million individuals would still fall below the EAR in the total population (U.S. Census Bureau. 2005).

Even worse, if someone in the upper echolons was bribed.... ah, I mean convinced by the conclusive evidence we have that using the population-weighted EARs instead of the population coverage RDA would be the best thing to do, this would increase the risks of inadequate iron and folate intake in women of childbearing age. Both, iron and folate deficiency, can result in irreversible damage to the unborn child (Scholl. 2000; McArdle. 2013). The same is true for vitamin A (Wallingford. 1986) of which Murphy et al. write that it "was identified as a shortfall nutrient (although intakes are not currently in the category ‘‘of concern’’) for the U.S. population" (Murphy. 2013).

"The Standard American Diet Has 'Optimal' Fatty Acid Ratio to Induce Diabesity." | read more

What has to be done? I hope you don't actually want me to answer this question - do you? I mean let's be honest - if people get 17–28% of total intakes of folate, iron, and vitamins A, B-12, and C and 8–12% of calcium and vitamins D and E from fortified foods (this is what Murphey et al. found) and are still deficient, you could obviously argue that we simply have to put even more vitamins and minerals into the nutrient deficient, energy dense junk the average Westerner is shoveling his piehole everyday.

But let's be honest: Wouldn't it be better to kill two birds with one stone by educating people that the stuff they eat is making them fat and sick - no matter how much artificial vitamins the "food" industry is pumping into their highly addictive, revenue-centered high-tech designer products?

References:

• McArdle, Harry J., Lorraine Gambling, and Christine Kennedy. "Iron deficiency during pregnancy: the consequences for placental function and fetal outcome." The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society (2013): 1-7.
• Murphy, Mary M., et al. "Revising the Daily Values May Affect Food Fortification and in Turn Nutrient Intake Adequacy." The Journal of nutrition 143.12 (2013): 1999-2006.
• U.S. Census Bureau. 2005 Middle series data from annual projections of the resident population by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: lowest, middle, highest, and zero international migration series, 1999 to 2100 (NP-D1-A). Washington: Department of Commerce; 2000 [cited 2012 Jun 16]. Available from: http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natdet-D1A.htm 
• Scholl, Theresa O., and William G. Johnson. "Folic acid: influence on the outcome of pregnancy." The American journal of clinical nutrition 71.5 (2000): 1295s-1303s.
• Wallingford, J. C., and B. A. Underwood. "Vitamin A deficiency in pregnancy, lactation, and the nursing child." In: Bauernfeind JC, ed. "Vitamin A deficiency and its control." New York: Academic Press, 1986:101–52.

Organic vs. Conventional: The Overlooked Low Cadmium Advantage. Almost 50% Lower Cd Levels and Half-Lifes of 10-30 Years May Be Another Reason to Buy Organic

Eating organic is not so much about what you get extra (vitamins etc.), but rather about paying more for getting less. Less pesticides and, as recent studies show, significantly less cadmium.

In view of the hype around organic produce, it would appear as if this was a bogus question, but previous studies were not able to confirm any of the huge claims you will read all over the internet. The only established benefit so far - and that's certainly not one you should underestimate - appears to be a relative lack of pesticides.

Only recently scientists have compared a broad variety of organic and conventially grown crops and found that organically grown crops do tend to have a notably lower cadmium content, as well. According to  conventionally grown crops – on average, about 48 % lower (this estimate takes into account 87 previously reported comparisons).

Learn more about the effects of your diet on your health at the SuppVersity

Only Whey, Not Soy Works for Wheytloss

Taste Matters - Role of the Taste Receptors

Dairy Protein Satiety Shoot-Out: Casein vs. Whey

How Much Carbs Before Fat is Unhealthy?

5 Tips to Improve & Maintain Insulin Sensitivity

Carbohydrate Shortage in Paleo Land

In view of the fact that the heavy metal cadmium (Cd) is emerging as a major cause of vascular disorders, various common cancers, kidney disease, osteoporosis and other health disorders, even in populations that do not have occupational exposure to this toxin(2–4), this is significant news.

With the exception of smokers, who are constantly exposed to significant amounts of cadmium, green vegetables, root vegetables, tubers, grains, organ meats and shellfish are the major sources of this toxin. Any reduction of the Cd levels in these foods may thus have significant beneficial health implications, since once Cd gets into your body, it cannot be excreted again.

Scientists estimate the half-life of cadmium in the human body to be 10–30 years (Suwazono. 2009)! Thus every nanogram you don't consume counts!

While cadmium can induce oxidative stress throughout the body, and interference with some of the physiological roles of Zn (as in DNA repair), the evidence that dietary (not smoke) exposure to cadmium has significant health effects is yet scarce.

There is something you can do to reduce cadmium absorption: Iron deficiency increases the efficiency of dietary Cd absorption and will put you at increased risk of toxicity. In addition to a correction of any existing iron deficiency, Zn and Mg may lessen the absorption of dietary Cd to some degree (Gallagher. 2011; McCarty. 2012)

This is partly due to the fact, though, that our ability to measure the chronic effects of very low doses of a certain toxic substance are very limited. In a recent review, McCarthy et al. (2014) list the following hitherto published studies:

• 

  Table 1: Whether there are more or less antioxidants in organic produce depends on the antioxidant you're looking at (Barański. 2014)

  Japanese researchers have long speculated about an involvement of cadmium exposure in the development of breast cancer and researchers from all around the world have speculated based on elevated urinary Cd concentrations that it may be responsible for 27-68% of the breast cancer cases (McElroy. 2006; Gallagher. 2010; Nagata. 2013).
• Recent multivariate-adjusted analyses of the National Health and Nutrition Survey cohort have concluded that Cd exposure may be responsible for 28 % of the myocardial infarction cases and 17 % of the total CVD and cerebrovascular disease cases (Everett. 2008; Agarwal. 2011). And data from the prospective Strong Heart Study (focusing on Native Americans) suggest that Cd exposure may account for 16, 23 and 28 % of the coronary disease, stroke and heart failure cases, respectively (Tellez-Plaza. 2013).

In spite of the fact that the epdidemiological evidence is not exactly abundant and disregarding the null results of case-control studies attempting to correlate dietary Cd intake with disease risk McCarthy et al. conclude that "if one focuses on urinary Cd concentrations when surveying Cd epidemiology, the hazard of Cd stands out crystal-clear" (McCarthy. 2014).

Organic or conventional? Learn more in my previous article about he different pesticide levels.

Bottom line: In view of the fact that vitamin content of organically grown produce is not necessarily higher (depends on the crop) and considering the fact that Baranski et al. found that organically grown crops do not have a lower content of lead or arsenic, two other mineral contaminants linked to health risks, when compared with conventionally grown crops, the lower cadmium along with the lower pesticide content I wrote about previously, remain the major scientifically verified advantages of organically grown produce.

That's obviously less than the internet gossip would suggest, but still enough to have anyone who is seriously concerned about his health can afford them choose organic over conventional produce | Comment on Facebook!

References:

• Agarwal, Shikhar, et al. "Heavy metals and cardiovascular disease: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2006." Angiology 62.5 (2011): 422-429.
• Barański, Marcin, et al. "Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses." British Journal of Nutrition 112.05 (2014): 794-811.
• Everett, Charles J., and Ivar L. Frithsen. "Association of urinary cadmium and myocardial infarction." Environmental research 106.2 (2008): 284-286.
• Gallagher, Carolyn M., John J. Chen, and John S. Kovach. "Environmental cadmium and breast cancer risk." Aging (Albany NY) 2.11 (2010): 804. 
• Gallagher, Carolyn M., John J. Chen, and John S. Kovach. "The relationship between body iron stores and blood and urine cadmium concentrations in US never-smoking, non-pregnant women aged 20–49 years." Environmental research 111.5 (2011): 702-707.
• McCarty, Mark F. "Zinc and multi-mineral supplementation should mitigate the pathogenic impact of cadmium exposure." Medical hypotheses 79.5 (2012): 642-648.
• McCarty, Mark F., and James J. DiNicolantonio. "Are organically grown foods safer and more healthful than conventionally grown foods?." British Journal of Nutrition 112.10 (2014): 1589-1591.
• McElroy, Jane A., et al. "Cadmium exposure and breast cancer risk." Journal of the National Cancer Institute 98.12 (2006): 869-873. 
• Nagata, Chisato, et al. "Cadmium exposure and the risk of breast cancer in Japanese women." Breast cancer research and treatment 138.1 (2013): 235-239.
• Suwazono, Yasushi, et al. "Biological half-life of cadmium in the urine of inhabitants after cessation of cadmium exposure." Biomarkers 14.2 (2009): 77-81.
• Tellez-Plaza, Maria, et al. "Cadmium exposure and incident cardiovascular disease." Epidemiology 24.3 (2013): 421-429.

Rustless Hearts: Adding 15-20ml of Virgin Coconut Oil to Your Diet May Counter the Oxidative Stress From Partially Oxidized Fats and Keep Your Heart Rust-Free

Could a daily dose of virgin coconut oil really be all it takes to escape the #1 leading cause of death (CDC data) - despite French fries and co?

Originally I wanted to post the results of this study from the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia as a short news item in the Facebook News. Then I decided that it may actually be worth to allow you to have a look a the surprisingly pronounced effects the addition (not replacement!) of 3-4 tablespoons of virgin coconut oil had on the in vivo lipid oxidation levels of rodent hearts in the course of this 4 months study at the end of which the researchers did not simply measure the systemic, but the more significant local malondialdehyde (MDA) levels. With the direct analysis of the presence of lipid oxidation production in the heart being a more reliable indicator of whether or not the changes the researchers observed in the study at hand are physically relevant...

Ah, I don't want to give it all away. So let's rather take a look at Subermaniam et al.'s attempt to "to investigate the influence of virgin coconut oil on the malondialdehyde level in the heart tissue of rats fed with heated palm oil." (Subermaniam. 2013)

Palm oil is ubiquitous

I am not sure if you are aware of that, but the regular palm oil (not the red PO with the high carotene and tocotrienol content), with its saturated - unsaturated fatty acid ratio close to one, has become the most widely used "vegetable oil" worldwide. In fact, if the product label says "vegetable oil" and there is a significant amount of saturated fats in a product, it's likely that what you are about to eat contains palm oil, which is easy to process and, with its 1:1 ratio of saturated to unsaturated fats relatively stable.

Rejection points of various oils (Marikkar. 2007; Berger. 2005; Casai. 2010)

Cooking with Virgin Coconut Oil (VCO) - good or bad idea? The answer to this question is not as straight forward as you may think. On the one hand frying the "virgin" oil, will have it lose it's virginity, i.e. most of those molecules that are responsible for the beneficial health effects. On the other hand, a study by Marikkar et al. (2007) shows that these molecules act as a buffer, due to which VCO has a 30% higher rejection point (13h vs. 10h of frying at "only" 180°C; compare to the other oils in the table to the right) than regular coconut oil (CNO) and refined corn oil (CO). After those 13h the concentration of newly formed compounds (TPCs) that have higher polarity such as oxidized triglycerides, diacylglycerides and fatty acids is >25% and downright unhealthy.

Despite being less prone to oxidation, the way the oil is reheated and (ab-)used for deep frying by the food industry can cause changes in the fatty acids composition of palm oil that may have significant health consequences.

"Repeatedly heated oil undergoes changes in physical appearance and a series of chemical reactions such as oxidation, hydrolysis and polymerization that eventually alter the fatty acid composition . Therefore, when the degree of unsaturation in fatty acid is greater, it is more vulnerable to lipid peroxidation (Choe. 2007)." (Subermanian. 2013)

In mouse and man, the ingestion of this chemically altered oil has been found to increase the levels of ,alondialdehyde  (MDA), one of the major end products of lipid peroxidation which causes endothelial damage, vascular inflammation and cell membrane injury (USDA. 2007).

Virgin coconut oil to the rescue?

Studies by Harrison and Ng have shown that the increases in MDA levels in response to the ingestion of oxidated palm oil causes "oxidative stress" and increases in blood pressure that cannot be countered by the ingestion of common antioxidants such as vitamin C and E (Harrison. 2007). Now, Subermaniam et al. were interested, whether the same would be true for the sunsaponifiable components in virgin coconut oil.

SuppVersity Suggested Read: True or false - Eating tons of medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) will make you lean | learn the truth!

In previous studies, these molecules, which are lost when the milk is not extracted under controlled temperature, have been linked to a host of beneficial health effects, e.g.

• anti-inflammatory and anti-thrombotic properties,
• the ability to reduce the oxidation of LDL cholesterol, or
• beneficial effects on the immune factor and cytokine response to endotoxins,

of the increasingly popular medium-chain-triglyceride rich oil from Cocos Nucifera Linn - an oil of which Figure 1 tells you that it has a lower peroxide value than freshly extracted palm oil even after processing and storage.

In view of its already established health benefits, the assumption that virgin coconut oil can ameliorate the pro-oxidative effect of diets that were fortified with 15% pre-heated palm oil, when it is administered to rodents at a daily dose of 1.43 ml/kg of body weight/day by oral gavage does not appear to be too far-fetched.

Figure 1: Left - MDA level in heart tissue after 4 months of feeding with basal diet (control), five times heated palm oil (HPO), basal diet and VCO supplementation (VCO) and five times heated palm oil with VCO supplementation (HPO+VCO; left); right - baseline peroxide value (in mEQO2/kg) of the oils used in the study (Subermaniam. 2013)

The rats stayed on these regular palm oil, pre-heated palm oil, regular palm oil + VCO, pre-heated palm oil + VCO and an unmodified control diet for 4 months. Thereafter, the thirty two rats were sacrificed and their heart tissues were harvested in order to measure the level of lipid oxidation. The results? Well, you just have to look at Figure 1 to see that there was a significant (p < 0.05) decrease in MDA (and peroxide / data not shown) values in the rodents which received the supplemental coconut oil on top of their heated palm oil diets.

Bottom line: It is unquestionably impressive that the effects of what would have been ca. 15-20ml commercially available virgin coconut oil for a human being were so pronounced that the oxidative stability of the lipids in the cells of the rodents on the HPO + VCO ended up being virtually identical to that of the rodents which received the regular chow. I must still warn you not to expect any of the meanwhile literal "Coconut Miracles".

In view of the fact that the benefits of the 'VCO supplement' did not depend on the presence of a "junk food" diet, it is still obvious that the addition of one or another tablespoon of virgin coconut oil may be one of the 1001 pieces of your personal "healthy lifestyle" puzzle - along with a protein- and vegetable-rich whole foods diet, exercise and more than just an occasional night of good night's sleep, of course ;-)

References

• Berger KG. The use of palm oil in frying. Malaysian Palm Oil Promotion Council. 2005.
• Casal S, Malheiro R, Sendas A, Oliveira BP, Pereira JA. Olive oil stability under deep-frying conditions. Food Chem Toxicol. 2010 Oct;48(10):2972-9.
• Choe E, Min DB. Chemistry and reactions of deep-fat frying oils. Journal of Food Science. 2007; 72(5):R77-R86.
• Harrison DG, Gongora MC, Guzik TJ, Widder J. Oxidative stress and hypertension. Journal of the American Society of Hypertension. 2007; 1(1):30-44.
• Marikkar et al. Assessment of the stability ofvirgin coconut oil during deep-frying. Cord 2007; 23(1).
• Ng CY, Kamisah Y, Faizah O, Jubri Z, Qodriyah HM, Jaarin K. Involvement of inflammation and adverse vascular remodelling in the blood pressure raising effect of repeatedly heated palm oil in rats. Int J Vasc Med. 2012;2012:404025.
• Subermaniam K, et al. Virgin Coconut Oil (VCO) Decreases the Level of Malondialdehyde (MDA) in the Cardiac Tissue of Experimental Sprague-Dawley Rats Fed with Heated Palm Oil. Journal of Medical and Bioengineering. 2014; 3(2).
• World  Vegetable  &  Marine  oil  Consumption,  World  Statistics, USDA, 2007, pp. 10

The Healthy Taste of Olive Oil. Would the Flavor Be Enough to Induce At Least Some of Its Health & Satiety Effects? Plus: Cholesterol Control - Pomace vs. Refined Olive Oil

What about an EVOO perfume, then?

I know, it sounds crazy, but in view of what you've learned in previous articles here at the SuppVersity about sweet taste receptors (learn more) and their far-reaching influence on our metabolism, it does not appear to far-fetched to assume that there is a receptor that "tastes" the flavor-active compounds of olive oil that's responsible for some of its beneficial health effects - right?

I guess, Sabine Frank and almost a dozen of other scientists from Germany and Austria must have had a similar idea, when they came up with the research question of their most recent study.

Olive oil flavored yoghurt?! Really?

I suppose, olive oil flavored, or, more specifically, low-fat yogurt mixed with a fat-free aroma extract from olive oil may not sound appealing to the average Western customer, but it would certainly deserve the label "functional food":

Figure 1: Only the olive oil enhanced yogurt will also enhance the activity of the frontal operculum (Frank. 2013)

As you can see in Figure 1, it's a functional food that has a statistically highly significant effect on the cerebral blood flow in the frontal operculum 30 and 120 min after a meal: This and the increased activity in the anterior insula of which the scientists found that it correlated positively with the postprandial change in bloos glucose change in the 11 healthy male subjects of the study, clearly suggest: The taste of olive oil alone has significant effects on the blood flow in parts of the brain that are involved in the control of energy intake and metabolic rate.

"What is the "frontal opercular" and why would I care about its blood supply?"

If the subheading to this paragraphs describes what you are thinking right now, it's about time to take a look at the little information we have about the frontal operculum:

• 

  Suggested read: "Pimp My Olive Oil! When Virgin is not Phenol-Rich Enough: The Pharmacokinetics of Phenol-Enriched Virgin Olive Oil." | read more

  We know from previous studies that the frontal operculum (FP) is sensitive to food intake.
• The study at hand shows that the FP does not care about caloric values (the yogurts were isocaloric).
• In task-related studies, the frontal operculum as part of the primary taste cortex, has shown pronounced activation to visual food cues and anticipation of food intake.
• The activation of the frontal operculum appears to control the "this smells good" or "this looks good, I must have it" response that makes weight loss so difficult.
• There is a telling relation between the sensitivity of the frontal operculum and the BMI of a person (Batterink. 2010; Yokum. 2011)
• Earlier fMRI studies showed that oral delivery of a drop of fat leads to an immediate increase in insular and frontal opercular activity, which suggests that there are "fat taste receptors" somewhere in the oral cavity or digestive tract that are wired to the the frontal perculum (Small. 2012).

Now, in context of the results of the study at hand, it is obviously the last of these points, which is particularly interesting. The discovery Frank et al. made would after all suggest that we can get satisfactory "fat effect" without the fat - simply by having the right "aroma."

Figure 2: Modulating effect of the minor components of pomace olive oil (POMACE) on lipid composition in 10 healthy young men (Cabello-Moruno. 2013) - severs as illustration for the importance of the "non-fat" components for our health.

Frank et al. also point out that the fact that they measured the CBF not immediately but 30 min and 120 min after the consumption of the yogurt would make it quite unlikely that they had mistaken an acute aroma response for what they believe is the "association with fat" - in other words, the researchers believe that the ingestion of the olive oil flavor components "modifies later responses to achieve an appropriate sensory control." Effects just as we know them from glucose and artificial sweeteners which "prepare" the body to release insulin.

Per capita consumption of vegetable oils and fats in selected European countries in 2009 (Eurostat. 2011)

Bottom line: I guess it is too early to say, whether and what kind of applications the said olive oil extract could have in the future. What the study does however show is that focusing on macros and even micronutrients, only, is insufficient.

In fact, the "ideal" diet, with the perfect macros and 100% adherence could in the end turn out to produce inferior results to a "sub-optimal", but tasty diet with olive oil and other aromas triggering all-sorts of still to be elucidated beneficial downstream effects on our physiology and psychology.

Reference: 

• Batterink L, Yokum S, Stice E. Body mass correlates inversely with inhibitory control in response to food among adolescent girls: an fMRI study. Neuroimage 2010;52:1696–703.
• Cabello-Moruno R, Martinez-Force E, Montero E, Perona JS. Minor components of olive oil facilitate the triglyceride clearance from postprandial lipoproteins in a polarity-dependent manner in healthy men. Nutrition Research. Oct. 2013 [accepted manuscript]
• Small DM, Green BG. A proposed model of a flavor modality. In: Murray MM, Wallace MT, eds. The neural bases of multisensory processes. Boca Raton, FL: 2012
• Yokum S, Ng J, Stice E. Attentional bias to food images associated with elevated weight and future weight gain: an FMRI study. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2011;19:1775–83.