Oil Processing

     Around the web and even in nutrition text books, we often  are referred to the vague term processing in regards to food stuffs manufacturing. I think most health conscious individuals acknowledge that processing is generally deleterious to the health providing qualities of food. For example refined flour, refined sugar, refined oil, etc. However I have often found that understanding the so called processing that takes place, even if only in a rudimentary manner, gives me further motivation to not eat industrialized food stuffs. I guess one might say actually knowing the methods behind the madness makes the food that much more unappeasing. Today I wanted to go over the steps from which a soybean, cotton kernel, corn kernel, and other seeds become industrial oils. I attribute much of the following information to be sourced from the online Encyclopedia Brittanica and Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill* by Udo Erasmus.

      The initiation of the process that takes a commodity seed to oil begins with general cleaning of the seed and possibly cooking. On one hand, the cooking is neccessary. Many of the seeds used, such as soy beans contain anti-nutrients such as trypsin inhibitors (1) that are only inactivated with heat. The raw oil would otherwise be inedible. Another advantage of this specific step is that heating the seed makes the pressing process (this is the following step) or the chemical extraction process (to be explained later) easier by denaturing the cell membranes which encompass the desired oils. However on the other other hand, the cooking process greatly accelerates the onset of rancidity exposing the oils to both air and heat, and possibly light (Textbook of Medical Biochemistry, Ramakrishnan, P.41) . This is confounded by the fact that most of the common commercial oils contain high proportions of the more delicate polyunsaturated fats( Ramakrishnan, P. 267).

Typical oil seeds; corn, cotton, soy, sunflower

     The next step in the process is the mechanical pressing of the seeds to extract oil. We often see this on the label of more traditional oils such as coconut, palm, and olive oils as expeller pressed. The method essentially involves subjecting the raw material to high amounts of mechanical pressure. Often times what is called a screw press is used (illustration below). This involves a continuoulsy rotating screw shaped auger pushing the seeds forward against a metal press. The friction created by the rotating auger combines with the high heat to squeeze the oil out of the seeds.The oil is released by of hole or slits in the press while the remaining solid mass(seed mash) is left behind for further processing. Accoridng to Erasmus, (p. 95) it is said that the pressing temperature takes place at 85 to 95 degrees Celsius or185 to 203 F, which subsequently  greatly increases the rate of lipid rancidity. When the end product of this mechanical extraction is sold without further processing, we have the true unrefined oils.

screw press, sounds like a resistance training exercise.

     Another consideration here is that saturated fats such as coconout and palm are less prone to be damaged by the high temperatures used (Ramakrishnan, P. 39,41). Although some companies claim to use cold pressed, Erasmus states there is not a set industry standard for this criterion or claim. The next procees described is solvent extraction, a more modern industrial practice used to further enhance the oil extraction from the seed mash, or that can be used independent of mechanical pressing.

      Solvent extraction is a very efficient means of oil extraction used by large scale industrial operations. Solvents such as heptane or hexane are used to dissolve ground seed meal or the remaining seed mash described above whilst also using mechanical agitation (think stirring on steroids). The solvent-oil mixture is separated from the naturally occuring protein and carbohydrate portion of the original seed. The same thing is going on here as the saying about oil & water dont mix. The heptane is similar to oil so it mixes while the protein, carbs, and water are repelled.) The solvent can then be evaporated at roughly 150 degrees Celsius or 302 F. The seed oil is then left behind with very minute quantities of the solvents left behind. The ranges I have found are in the range of  10-21 ppm (2). Although I am not a fan of hexane, I will say that the concentration left behind in oils does not seem to be a major casuse for concern (although there are many). What may be disconcerning to some health conscious consumers is that the solvent extracted oil may still be labeled as unrefined at this point, again placing greater importance to choosing  the expeller pressed brands if hexane is a key concern for the consumer.For the more commonly sold vbegetable oils and the oils labeled as refined, such as Spectrum refined coconut oil or NOW brands natural coconut oil, further chemical processing takes place.

       Degumming, or alkali refining is a process that removes the phospholipids naturally occuring in seed oils, such as soy lecithin (phospholipid wiki). Left behind proteins and polysaccharides (complex carbohydrates) from the preceeding extraction methods are also removed during degumming. As far as the possible health worries Erasmus claims that degumming removes chlorophyll, calcium, magnesium, iron, and copper. The degumming process is generally carried out at roughly 140 F (Erasmus, P. 96).

      During the process known as water refining or just refining, oils are mixed with strong bases  (proton or hydrogen ion acceptors that completely dissolve in water) such as sodium hydroxide (NaOH). Refining is meant to further remove free fatty acids from oils.The free fatty acids form soaps with the bases (eg NaOH) and dissolve in the hydrophilic (water loving) portion of the mixture. This aqueous solution is then drained off, or centrifuged and then drained off from the oil. The temperature at which refining takes place is roughly 75 degrees celcius or 167 F. Phospholipids, polypeptides, and minerals are also lost in this process (Erasmus, P. 96). Before moving on, I have to make note that at this point, the proccessing of the oil has not only removed health promoting components of the oil like lecithin and minerals like iron, zinc, and so forth, but that they are then sold back to consumers in the form of soap, soy lecithin, etc.Its pretty crazy. Although pigments may still remain., theyl'l be gone soon enough. Next up are bleaching and deodorizing.

     Bleaching is used if removal of the pigments is desired. The remaining oil treated with various bleaching agents, which may include fuller’s earth (a natural earthy material that will decolorize oils), activated carbon, or activated clays. The bleaching agents mentioned remove beneficial pigments such as chlorophyll and beta-carotene.Magnesium is stored in the chlorophyll and beta carotene is a pre cursor to Vitamin A. Additionally if the centrifuge method was not used during refinement, additonal FFAs may be removed during bleaching. The temperature at which this process takes place is 110 Celsius or 230 F. According to Erasmus, this process forms toxic peroxides as well (Erasmus P. 96).

    Deodorizing involves steam distillation under pressure. The deodorization removes any aromatic compounds that impart any remaining pungent taste or odor to the oil.  Erasmus notes that deodorization takes place a highly destructive temperatures in the range of 240 to 270 degrees Celsius or 465-520 F! And this process is said to last 30 to 60 minute depending on the oil. These temperatures are high enough to result in carcinogenic mutations to the remaining fats in the oil (3).  Trans-fatty acids are also formed at such high temperatures. Although deodorization removes some of the peroxides formed during earlier stages of processing , as well as pesticide residues, tocopherols (Vitamin E) and plant sterols are also removed as well. (Erasmus P.97)

      At this point, the oil processor has yielded a valuable commodity. Flavorless, colorless, tasteless oil (yum!) that can be further handled to add flavors, textures, colors, etc. that meet the consumer's demands for highly palatable cheap frankenfood. However, with the exception  of some of the healthier oils, such as palm, coconut, and olive oil, most of these will have synthetic antioxidants added in back as well, such as butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), or tertiary butyhydroquinone (TBHQ). These replace the plant's natural antioxidants such as the above mentioned phytochemical, Vitamin E, and beta carotene.

     As you can establish for yourselves at this point, the processing of oils, while an intriguing science, does not appear to be the optimal method of foos extraction for promoting good health. In fact up until the late 20th century there were wide spread nutrient deficiencies due to processing food without the realization that key nutrients were lost. It was believed that  biologically complete diets need only to consistr sufficient proteins, carbohydrates, fats, inorganic salts, and water (4). Unfortunately or fortunately it was later discovered that we needed micronutrients in the form of vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals. While fortification of foods with certain nutrients has probably helped, I still don't believe it's enough. Below I have created a table based the calculations of Weton A. Price in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (P.246 & 247) to show just how lacking the American diet was compared to traditional diets in his time.The numbers are how many times more of the listed nutrient (eg Ca) that the traditional cultures recieved in contrast to urbanized  Americans at the time (mid 1930's) through diet. Its pretty amazing.

    With that said, processed oils (along with processed sugar and flour) just make up too much of the American diet. The USDA recently reported that we are consuming 1.4 billion pounds of cottonseed oil, alone, annually (see here).We are eating the oils of these seeds in proportions that we would never eat in the form of real food. I have blogged on this previously as well (here). The nutrient density is just not there in addition to the synergistic effect that I believe real food nutrients provide when eaten together as one in the context of real food.



Add caption

* While I found Erasmus's book helpful for this post, I think it is important to disclose he does sell his own oil blends that are focused more on the EFA rather than the coconut oil, palm, and olive oil I would reccomend. I believe eating the fat from sources like coconuts and olives that are mostly fat, when found in nature, is probably more suitable for humans in that eating large amounts of fat from these foods is not new to us as a species.

Unsettling Findings in GMOs

      In my most recent post (see here), I discussed GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, spefically pertaining to food. We discussed how these foods are produced, as well as some history, technology, and business preactices involving GMO.s Today I specifically wanted to discuss the science behind the GMOs, are they safe or not. Is the current body of literature ambuguous in it's findings, and has it been conducted adequately?
   
    I am by no means an expert in the field of GMO research but I have read many articles regarding genetically modified foods on aletrnative health websites, blogs, and even mainstream publication such as the Huffington Post. With that in mind, I have come to be highly suspicious of secondary sources over the years so I try to find the primary documents (in case the original research). Its always a good idea to start research in an area with a few review papers. A 2007 review by By Varzakas (1) noted that while science is obviously a major arena in he tdetermination of a GMO efficacy, other issues such as economical, political, ideologica/philosophical, ethical, and human issues are also concerned. The authors concluded that inadequate legislative measureshave been taken to protect consumers from their consumption. This is based on their reasoning that there has not been enough experimentation conducted to ensure safety. Interestingly these ressearchers are based out of the Institute of Kalmata in Greece. Here in the US,  even fewer legislative measures have been taken to ensure the safety of the consumer.

     The next review I came across was more favorable towards GMO, but did have obvious flaws in reasoning.  A 2008 review by Key et al  (2) concluded that "Foods derived from GM crops have been consumed by hundreds of millions of people across the world for more than 15 years, with no reported ill effects (or legal cases related to human health)". These researchers also more or less state that current safety testing in place is adequate, which is contradictory to Varzakas. In my opinion, these conclusion are pretty much laughable (except this is a serious issue!). To begin with, there is no mandated labelling of GMOs in the US so even if there are health ramifications associated with GMOs it will be impossible for future researchers to do an accurate epidemiological study in regards to GMO consumption. In additon the analysyes of such a study would be just about inconceivable, requiring a multivariate regression  analyses that, in theory, teased out the numerous other dietary offenses of the average US citizen such as excess sugar consumption and disproportianate w6:w3 ratio. Cause and effect could never be determined.
    
      Secondly, on the conclusion of Key et al, that current testing is adequate, GM foods must go through the FDA for approval, but there is no required independent safety testing, meaning the testing is left to the producer(see fda website). If nothing else, at the minimum, the research is thus subject to an obvious conflict of interest. There has been essentially no long term animal toxicology on any GM product, something the medical community should be concerned about.
   
  As far as some of the actual investigations involving GM foods and health outcomes, researchers such as Arpad Pusztai (3) and Irina Ermakova (4) claim to have found negative outcomes stemming from GMO intake including organ damage and fertility issues whuch I will further discuss shortly. Other researchers have noted negative outcomes as well such as  hypertrophy of the  villus epithelial cells in the small intestine,  hypernucleation, disrupted microvilli, and  mitochondrial degeneration, increased numbers of lysosomes and autophagic vacuoles,all indications of an inflammatory reponse. This has been one of the key concerns with GMOs (5). Pusztai suggests transgenic proteins can have major effects on their gastrointestinal tract. As most proteins are immunogenic their consumption may trigger immune/allergic effects both in the mucosal immune system of the gut and more worrisome a systemic effect, where by the reaction affects the whole body. In the latter case, the size, structure, and function of other internal organs would be affected, particularly in individuals more succeptible, such as the immunocompromised (the young and elderly member of a population).
  
     However the work of Pusztai was refuted in the review by Key et al for inadequate sample size and poor methodolgy leading me to  question 1) Pusztai's work, but also 2) question why Dr Pusztai has simply not been asked to do further experiments in order to clarify the issues brought into question. To the best of my knowledge,similar studies have not carried out by Pusztai or others. Another important consideration is that Ermakovas work finding infertility following GMO is exclusively sponsored by GreenPeace and is not found in mainstream peer reviewed journals. While I have no qualms with GreenPeace, their ideological believes run contrary to the use of GMO crops and I find it odd that her findings are not published in a respected journal. In addition to Ermakova's work, there is one other 2010 trial that is often discussed in anti-gmo circles.

     One of the most unsettling studies in regards to gentically modified foods was first reported in the U.S. by Jefffrey Smith and published in the Huffington Post. (see here). This story has floated around the internet quite a bit. Unfortunately The story is based upon findings that were unpublished in the scientific literature at the time and do this date, the only study I have been able to locate that is even similar to this experiment is an abstract from a Russian journal with no author name listed (6). Supposedly the research was carried out by Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov and colleagfues seeking to find if GM soy beans lead to problems in growth or reproduction. The researchers used  hamsters, and divided the population into 4 groups. All groups were fed a normal hamster chow diet (control), in addtion to non-GM soy, GM soy, and "high" amounts of GM soy. They used 5 pairs of hamsters per group. After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the high GM soy diet, displayed alarming results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among offspring.
  
   Researchers are said to have selected new pairs from each group of the first generation, which generated a total of  39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group (standard chow only) and 78 to the non-GMO soy group. In the GMO feed groups (both groups), only 40 pups were born, and 25% of those born are reported to have died. This equates to a  fivefold higher death rate in GMO fed groups than the 5% seen among the controls. Also worthy of note, is that of the hamsters that ate "high" GM soy content, only 1 female hamster gave birth. The researchers claim that she had 16 pups and roughly 20% died. Although no statistics are given, Smith wrote that Surov claimed near total sterility in the third generation of GMO fed hamsters. These finding are certainly unsettling (if they are ever properly substantiated) especially when one considers that endocrine impairment is already being witnessed today. A recent study by Travison found a decline in serum testosterone levels in American men witnessed across all age matched groups compared to just 20 years ago (7).

      To wrap things up, I am uneasy about eating GMO food personally, based upon the current body of scientific literature. While it appears that most of the available literature in the peer reviewed journals has not found drastically shocking findings against GMO foods, there are also some findings that are definitely alarming. I do wish that the research that does appear to against GMOs had more mainstream credibilty, however, alot of research has been funded industry (mainly biotech industry but some anti GMO interests) as well. This leaves one to question if market forces are suppressing truth. Big tobacco comes to mind as a reference point.
  
     At the least we can say that there are inadequacies in the research. There are other factors that must be  questioned as well; How thorough researchers can be in their work simply due to current knowledge limitations. For example it is only possible to compare currently known properties and constituents of GMO foods in contrast to conventional foods. I would imagine there are still several unknown constiuents that are not even known, making it impossible to analyze these differences. This creates a severe limitation on selection criteria observed. Also results based solely on chemical analysis of macro/micronutrients and known toxins is at best inadequate and, possibly dangerous dangerous. One of the examples I read was compairng the protein, fats, etc of  healthy cows to those oo a cow with BSE (mad cow disease). They may be the same, but no one wants to eat the cow with mad cow disease.  So with all that said, I would reccomend avoiding GMOs and the best way to do that with out stressing out about it is to once agian just eat real food! Most of these crops are only found in processed foods containing GMO corn, soybean, canola, and the other usual suspects.
-AR

Genetically Modified Foods; Friends or Foes

      So the last time I posted, I thought I would have another post up within 24 hrs. Yeah not so much. Sorry but time was not on my side.I finally determined what/where I will be doing a research project next year for my masters degree, and the I started my job milking on a small dairy this week.On Saturday I took a trip back to Chicago to find an apartment and listen to Jeffrey Smith give a presentation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  Anyways today I would like to do a post GMOs myself.

     First off I want to say that I am not against the idea of genetically altering foods. Plant and animal breeding has taken place since the advent of horticulture. However this form of genetic manipulation is what one would call vertical gene transfer.The desired genes are transferred down from the parent organisms to the offspring. For example, a cattleman and dairy farmer might cross breed their herds to yield a breed that is both productive for producing milk and well muscled for meat production. An example of this would be the breed known as the American Milking Shorthorn (productive milk and beef producer). Similar means are used to produce desirable plants and flowers. Most of us probably remember learning a bit about this back in Middle School or High School science classes with Gregor Mendel and his pea plants (see more here). GMOs, however, are not achieved via vertical gene transfer. The technology utilized involves the use of horizontal gene transfer.

American Milking Shorthorn

The production of GMOs relies on a form of horizontal gene alteration known as transformation.For a thorough description of this process, you may want to refer to this article by Michael Peel, of the agriculture extension agency at North Dakota State University (here). The shortened version is something like this; a desirable gene is identified and isolated, and transferred to a bacterial plasmid (a small circular piece of DNA) for protection. The plasmid is then inserted into the cells of the plant the scientists seek to alter, with the hope that the gene on the plasmid will teansfer to the target cell. The other, more common means of transfer is coating particles of metals such as gold with the genes of interest and shooting them into the target cells with a gene gun (sounds sci-fi right?)  The scientists can then use certain markers to identify if the gene transfer has taken place between the plasmid (remember its carrying the desirable genes) or the gene carrying particles and the target plant cells.


Diagram of the described horizontal gene transfer for the visual learners out there.

      Now that we've discussed how GMOs are made, lets take a look at the implications. Genetic modification is not only used in foods. This technology can also be used to produce pharmaceutical drugs, and supplements. It is used in industry to produce useful chemical agents, and can also be used for genetic mapping purposes. To the best of my knowledge, the technology used for artifical genetic modification has only been in use since the early 1970's coincident with the Green Revolution (discussion on green revolution). There first study I could find on the use of genetic modification dates back to '73 and was done by Stanley Cohen and colleagues at UC-San Francisco (1).

  In my opinion, the discoveries of Cohen and others during the green revolution were beneficial to the quality of life for mankind, with the increased production of  high quality food (although I cant say the same for the earth as a whole due to increased population pressure and environmental degradation). Contrary to others, I dont think the green revolution was spurred by malice. The occurence of the Green Revolution is a major reason the population has ballooned from 3.7 in 1970 roughly 7 billion today. In the words of Cohen et al,

   " Here is potentially useful for insertion of specific sequences from prokaryotic or eukaryotic chromosomes or extrachromosomal DNA into independently replicating bacterial plasmids."

 

    I believe the intent was great, but unfortunately overzealous corporations and policy makers have been too quick to allow the rapid proliferation of genetically modified crops into our food system and business practices have been less than scrupulous to say the least. In theory drought resisatant rice in sub saharan Africa sounds great to alleviate hunger in the region. I would love to see cold tolerant banana & cashew treeshere in my native midwest, but there are several catches to be considered.

   To begin with, the production of GMOs is most often carried out large corporations with profits in mind, more so than the greater good of man. Four companies, Syngenta, Dupont, Bayer, and Monsanto are thought to control more than half of the world's seeds (2) Monsanto alone holds over 650 seed patents! In addition to owning a lion's share of these market these companies do not have trhe greatest track record. For example it has been well reported in documentaries such as Unatural Selection the foreign media such as The Dailymail and The Telegraph across the pond in the UK that the practices of Monsanto led to massive suicide numbers by indian farmers. Anecdotally I have discussed with many India natives over the years as well. This 2008 article in The Dailymail by Andrew Malone describes the situation (3).

   The gist of it is that in India for millenia, farmers have farmed using heirloom seeds and re-collected the native seeds every year at no cost. In recent years, Monsanto has marketed their seeds to farmers promising higher yield. The farmers pay the premium for Monsanto's patented seeds and chemicals (Roundup anyone?) with loans expecting high yields to pay back their loans. Unfortunately the promised high yields have not come to fruition in many cases, leading the farmers to yield net loss rather than financial gain. Furthermore, since the seeds are Monsantos they cannot recollect them. They must but more seeds. Several farmers have been driven so far into debt that they are forced to relinquish their familt land, which has often been passed generation to generation for several genearations. The circumstances have led many to commit suicide. Fortunately activists such as Vandana Shiva are doing their part to educate the Indianfarmers and reclaim Indias farming sovereignity. Farming in smaller, "less developed" nations is less of a business and small farms can not afford to risk their financial livlihoods on promises of companies such as the four listed above. On another positive note, farmers in other nations have got the message as well.
 
    Coverage of the Haiti earthquake aftermath by the mainstream media died down pretty quickly, but the Huffington Post reported that Haitian farmers actually burned seeds "donated" by Monsanto. The article reported that  peasant farmer leader Chavannes Jean-Baptiste of the Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP) called for the immediate burning the of 60,000 seed sacks to be donated  by Monsanto, thus saving the farmers from having to continually purchase Monsanto seeds and the pesticides that often accompany the seeds. The farmers may or maynot have given up higher yileds by burning the seeds, but I have to agree with there decision, in that I would not want to play financial russian roulette with the Monsanto seeds either.

     Well its getting past my blogging time limit, and I have some gardening to do, so let me try to top this post off. Tomorrow I plan to discuss the health implications of GMOs. As I said I am not completely against the idea of gene modification and the improvement of plant characteristics, but as noted earlier the technology is extremely recent, relatively speaking, and I don't think these plants should have been introduced to our food system without thorough inspection on health implicationsfirst. Unfortunately that is not the case. Animal studies have been mixed in regardes to health findings in animal feeding models. Negative findings have included organ damage and sterility within 3 generations of feeding aniamls GMO feed! I plan to discuss this tomorrow.

   As I stated above, our media has not done a great job of informing the public on GMOs, the possible associated risks, and the bad business practices taking place. Below is the story of two respected journalists, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre who were censored from reporitng an unflattering news piece on a local Florida Fox station. No conspiracy here, as it makes perfect financial sense for media mogul Rupert Murdoch not to risk losing millions in advertising dollars from Monsanto for his Fox empire (see Murdoch wiki).

     In conclusion let me finish this up with a little positive news and a couple of resources. The knowledge on GMOs is finally going a little more mainstream. Prince Charles has actually been calling for cessation on the use of GMO and even spoke against factory farming just days after the recent royal wedding (4 & 5). Jeffrey Smith, one of the worlds leading advocates made a recent appearance on the Dr. Oz show to discuss GMOs (here). The Huffington Post   recently reported that 9 out of 10 Americans would like to see GMOs labeled (which they currently are not) and 53% of those polled stated they would make a conscious effort NOT to buy GMOs if they knew what foods they were found in (here).

I really have not discussed the health findings that may lead many to want to forfeit GMOs quite yet but for those interested in learning more I suggest navigating the Institute for Responsible Technology. There you can find non GMO shopping guides, as well as read the blog solely dedicated to GMOs, and download other resources such as audio CDs you can use for your own further education and to give to friends , family, etc.
Heres the link....
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

Lastly (no really), a quick tip I often reccomend to avoid GMOs is to just avoid processed foods (as you should be doing anyway) and read your PLU's when you buy produce. If it begins with 4, it's conventional. If it begins with 9, it's organic and if the PLU begins with 8, the product is GMO. In the 3-4 years I have known to do this, I have never seen a PLU beginning with an 8. Heres an example just in case; 4060 = broccoli, 94060 = organic broccoli, 84060 = GMO broccoli. Again just an example, Ive never seen GMO broccoli. A mnemonic my mom came up with is 8 is evil, 9 is nice.

Mmmm

Alright that's it for today.

-AR

Back and Balanced

Whew...took some time off there.

       Im not a self help guru and will never proclaim to be, never. I am too indecisive (open-minded, to be more positive) and I am willing to consider that in nearly all endeavors there is not a crystallized right and wrong way to do things. However,I just thought today would be a good day to stress the importance of balance in one's life. I have not posted in just over month and here is why; This semester I decided to take 4 graduate level courses, help a copuple of other grad students with their research project, work 2 teaching assistant (TA) positions, and continue with my part time job at the gym.In addition to this load, in January I also decided it was time to start passing some of my acquired knowledge forward (to anyone who wants to read it of course) and start a blog.With that in mind, I will always feel the need to workout at a high level of intensity and maintain a diet that I feel is at least in the ball park of being optimal for health.

     Needless to say I turned the concept of balance into a balancing act.Something had to give, if I were to maintain the little bit of sanity Im working with, so I figured with only a very small following, the blog would be the least impactful on my or anyone else's interests. Fortunately I am done with the semester now, and have decided to scale back my work load.  Don't get me wrong, I dont think my schedule was exactly back breaking, relatively speaking. For example, one of students this semester worked full time as a cop, took 12 credit hours, and maintained a marriage.  I know other people who maintain a much more daunting schedules than myself as well, but I think it again all comes down to balance, and what the individual's priorities are. I'm ofetn interested and wonder how long these people can this up also.


   For me to maintain my happiness, I need to be able to get my time in the gym, sleep about 7 hours per, allocate enough of my time to each of my respective endeavors to do reasonably well in each of them, maintain my JERF diet (just eat real food!), and have some quiet time at night just to read and think. It may sound like a lot, but if this is not happening, the lifestyle is not sustainable for me, as it is not conducive to my happiness and overall well being.  For some people, doing what they do well may not be a priority (unfortunately I see this alot), or a maybe they have no qualms with eating convenience "food", they workout less frequently, and the list goes on. For some of us the deal breaker maybe lack of socializing, television, and again the list goes on.

   The point is that I think it's key for all of us to periodically take the time to consider what's important in our lives and from there try to allocate our time in such a manner that we achieve what we, as individuals, believe to be balance. After we allocate time to balance our lives we have to try to remember that these activities, pursuits are important to us, or they bring us joy, or at least consider the alternative. Basically just don't lose sight of why your doing what your doing

    Also, in order to maintain the sanity, happiness, fulfillment, or  (insert whatever), I think it's important we don't lose sight of what we do because we like to versus what we do beacause we have to. Robb Wolf does a great job discussing this in the stress management portion of The Paleo Solution. He likens us to being "zoo humans". I couldn't agree more. My own thoughts, in addtion to just talking with fellow stressed out peers, friends, et cetera, kind of reaffirmed for me how many of us constantly feel the need to do things that are not actually neccessary. For example, you can study 2 hours and get a B  on an exam or study 5 hours and get an A. Its kind of like a spin on Pareto's. Our society selects the types who put in that 5 hours, but I have to wonder how admirable that really is. I know I have spent numerous hours in front of the ol' monitor that could have been spent relaxing, socializng , self educating, and so forth. For me, I find the A to be gratifying, a quantifiable means of verifying my intellligence or ability to work hard. This applies in other area of live too, needless to say.

I cant count how many days this semester I would stress about having to get my workout, rather than focusing on I get to workout, or I get to read. These are activities I like to do, but unintentionally turned them into chores. I just hope everyone reading can learn from my mistake and not make the same indiscretion. Its a privelege to spend time with family, going to work to earn money (at least in this economy anyway), gettingan education. Unfortunately we all lose sight of this sometimes. As busy as my schedule was , I know I would much rather it, than to be sitting back on my mom's couch.


   Well before I turn this into a complete vent session (hopefully I haven't done so already), I want to conclude that I am back, and I plan on posting at the minimum, weekly. In order to keep this task from becoming a chore, the length may be cut down a bit, as well as the diligance I put fourth in citing every meaningful claim/statement, but I want to continue to do this in sustainable manner that allows me to have fun while at the same put out informantion that may help others to improve their health as well. Look out for a post in the next 24 hours!

“Anything worth doing is worth doing badly – at first”....Lesson learned!

Nutraceuticals: Vinegar

One of the first dietary "supplements"...vinegar.

The term "nutraceutical" was coined by combining "nutrition" and "pharmaceutical" in 1989 by Stephen DeFelice, MD. According to DeFelice, "A nutraceutical is any substance that is a food or a part of a food and provides medical or health benefits, including the prevention and treatment of disease." I plan to start a series on a small number of whole food dietary adjuncts that I think should be adopted nearly universally based on science and anecdote. Whether vegan or "meatitarian" they may be of some value and worth considering adding to the diet. I will start with vinegar.



First off there are whole books on vinegar and it's purported health benefits. I want to keep this post readable, so I'll mostly, not entirely, focus vinegars role in regulating glycemia and insulin. This is of particualr importance to those concerned with Type II Dieabetes management, weight loos, and possibly athletes (vinegar may be implicated in improving glycogen re-synthesis as well). I also try to focus mainly on the scientific research that supports these claims and delve into the possible mechanisms by which vinegar maybe working.


Vinegar has a pretty lengthy track record. Its been reported in the literature that  Hippocrates, the father of medicine used vinegar medicinally to manage wounds as far back as the 5th century BC. Sung Tse, one of the 10th century creators of forensic medicine, preached practice of hand washing with sulfur and vinegar to avoid infection during autopsies (1). According to the Folk Medicine History of Archives many common ailments including poison ivy, croup, and stomach-ache were treated with vinegar. Before the production of glycemic regulating pharmaceuticals (e.g. metformin), vinegar tinctures were commonly consumed by diabetics to help manage their condition (2).


A lot of the more recent research involving vinegar has investigated its effects on postprandial glycemic regulations. In simpler terms, it has looked at the glucose response to a meal with or without vinegar added to the meal, either with the meal, or some extended time before hand; say 5 hours.  In comparison to fasting blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c, postprandial glycemia (PPG) is considered the earliest dysglycemic marker for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and the onset of Diabetes. It has been reported that PPG is linearly related to CVD risk across nondiabetic and diabetic ranges (3). The adverse effects of elevated PPG, even when fasting blood glucose or hemoglobin A1c concentrations are normal, lies in that even acute elevations in blood glucose are implicated  in the formation of free radicals and inflammatory mediators (4).


Several studies have found a relationship of varying degree implicating that vinegar has the ability to 
lower the glycaemic response to a large carbohydrate load (3,5,6,7). However the mechanisms behind the action of vinegar remain unknown for the most part. Earlier investigators in the field speculated that improved glycaemic and insulin responses to a white bread reference meal was probably due to delayed gastric emptying evoked by the vinegar somehow (6). In 2005, Ostman and colleagues also witnessed that the addition of vinegar to a meal based on white bread reduced postprandial responses of blood glucose and insulin, and increased the subjective rating of satiety. Here too, the investigators speculated that the mechanism was impaired gastric emptying or due to  or to the inhibition of digestive enzymes. In cultured Caco-2 cells, the addition of acetic acid, but not other organic acids such as citric or lactic acids, inhibited sucrase, maltase, trehalase and lactase activity (3). However the inhibition of these enzymes in vitro (see here) does not neccessarily mean that the same will occur in humans.




More recent recent research has revealed that vinegar may act through other potential mechanisms, which is what I suspect personally. A 2009 study by Arline Salbe, Carol Johnston (the rock star of vinegar research lol), and colleagues seems to have ruled out the possibility of delayed gastric emptying (8). The researchers suppressed insulin secretion using an oral octreotide/insulin suppression test (OOST) designed to quantify the rate of glucose absorption without the confounding effects of variable glucose clearance due to rising endogenous insulin secretion. The OOST  suppressed endogenous insulin secretion for the first 100 minutes of data collection following the assigned meal. During this time, the  rise of glucose was modestly but significantly (P = .01) greater after vinegar ingestion compared to placebo, suggesting that vinegar does not act to decrease glycemia by interference with enteral carbohydrate absorption.


With gastric emptying ruled out, I would say the best bet is probably that inegar improves insulin sensitivity. A 2004 study also done by Johnston seems to support this. Johnston and fellow researchers found that vinegar improved insulin sensitivity to a high carbohydrate meal in subjects (9). The study included nondiabetic subjects who were either insulin sensitive (controls) or insulin resistant and subjects with type 2 diabetes. Here the subjects recieved a diluted vinegar solution (20 g apple cider vinegar, 40 g water, and 1 tsp saccharine) or placebo drink and, after a 2-min delay the test meal, which was composed of a white bagel, butter, and orange juice for a total of 87 carbohydrates. Blood samples were collected at fasting and 30 and 60 min postmeal for glucose and insulin analyses.


Compared with the placebo drink, vinegar ingestion raised whole-body insulin sensitivity during the 60-min post meal interval in insulin-resistant subjects (34%, P = 0.01, paired t test) and in subjects with type 2 diabetes (19%, P = 0.07). Postprandial fluxes in insulin were significantly reduced by vinegar in healthy subjects as well (% not reported).  I think it is interesting to note that the normal subjects postprandial glucose was not significantly altered but that it took less insulin to regulate the response. So far this is the most solid evidence I have found to support the use of vinegar in improving insulin sensitivity. However there is animal research as well.


A 2001 rat study found that acetic acid feeding enhanced muscle glycogen repletion in rats(10). Any exercise physiology text will read that insulin is antagonistic to glucagon in that it inhibits the breakdown of glycogen and aids in the repletion process. Furthermore two more recent rat studies  have replicated these findings (11 & 12). In fact the most recent of these studies found that the rats fed the acetic acid  had a significantly  lower ratio of insulin to glucagon than the control group at the same point of analyses. Despite this, the acetic acid group had significantly greater liver and gastrocnemius muscle glycogen concentrations. Now granted, I am making some extrapolations here by assuming what worked in rat works for humans, but coupled with the limited direct evidence available, it does appear to strengthen the potential of this mechanism as a possibility.


Lastly, I came across yet another investigation led by Johnston that did not look at insulin directly but found that vinegar ingestion decreased blood glucose response to the same test meal described earlier and improved satiety as well (13). Consumption of vinegar with the high carb test meal was associated with a a reduction of roughly 200-275 Calories throughout the day, sugeesting an improvement in insulin control.


How might one incorporate vinegar?


In order to blind the subjects, researchers typically disguise the vinegar by adding saccahrine and food coloring. Personally I just drink a couple sips of the vinegar straight up followed by water. However other people using vinegar anecdotally are using more palatable concotions such as mixing with honey to make oxymel or mixing it with stevia. In regards to kind and type of vinegar, in the U.S. apple cider vider vinegar is the most commonly used, however it seems coconut, white wine, balsamic, and so forth would work just as well because they all contain the acetic acid. The studies I read were using heinz and claim that the advocation of the "the mother" found in most of the organic, unpasteurized varieties is unsubstantiated. Personally I always buy a brand that includes the mother based on the assumption of it has a long track record, and at the very worst, it probably cant hurt. Depending on one's goals it seems appropriate to have some vinegar with regular meals and/or or peri-workout nutrition.


*Studies in the field have many peculiarities. For example in the investigations  by Johnston et al (3), 10 g of a vinegar in a diluted solution produced significant effects in lowering the glycaemic response to a large carbohydrate load, whereas 20 g did not. In the trial conducted by Ostman et al. (5) there was an observed inverse dose-response relationship between the level of acetic acid (1.0, 1.4 and 1.8 g) and the PPG response to a 50-gram carbohydrate load.