Another reason to minimize highly processed foods
ahamm002
Posts: 1,690 Member
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132105.htm
Of course these results will have to be reproduced in humans. But it's very unlikely that human gut flora will behave all that differently from mouse gut flora.
Disclaimer before the strawman arguers come out in force:
-Yes, CICO still rules (but certain factors can set people up to either succeed or fail).
-No, I'm not advocating eating completely clean either. Restrictive diets don't work for most.
Of course these results will have to be reproduced in humans. But it's very unlikely that human gut flora will behave all that differently from mouse gut flora.
Disclaimer before the strawman arguers come out in force:
-Yes, CICO still rules (but certain factors can set people up to either succeed or fail).
-No, I'm not advocating eating completely clean either. Restrictive diets don't work for most.
0
Replies
-
Meh, it would be nice to know which mice they use.....generally they are treated with mutagens to predispose them for specific scientific work, and of course we aren't mice. Low grade inflammation that probably does more harm is cell phone use now that they are attached directly to ones hand.0
-
Oh that's not good. My brother-in-law is celiac and eats packaged gluten free foods regularly. I wonder if this could be even worse news for him if it applies to humans?0
-
-
I guess I'm not surprised by these results. And I predict it's just a matter of time until this is readily shown in humans.
0 -
I just sent my sister a text to check out the article.0 -
It probably already is easy to observe, but doubtful anyone is directly researching it.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I guess I'm not surprised by these results. And I predict it's just a matter of time until this is readily shown in humans.
0 -
It probably already is easy to observe, but doubtful anyone is directly researching it.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I guess I'm not surprised by these results. And I predict it's just a matter of time until this is readily shown in humans.
Perhaps. But I am suggesting someone WILL be studying it soon enough.0 -
And of course my sis, being more healthy by far than I am for decades, is already on it and planning to make her own chocolate and other snackfoods completely from scratch.0
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
It probably already is easy to observe, but doubtful anyone is directly researching it.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I guess I'm not surprised by these results. And I predict it's just a matter of time until this is readily shown in humans.
Perhaps. But I am suggesting someone WILL be studying it soon enough.
we shall see. I think there is enough funding limiters out there that it will be a long time before funds are made available for research of these types.0 -
And of course my sis, being more healthy by far than I am for decades, is already on it and planning to make her own chocolate and other snackfoods completely from scratch.
There are some things that are good to make on your own, others that are terrible.
chocolate and butter being two that are terrible.0 -
Key here is the susceptibility of the host. Even stated in the study. Just like people who have red hair and blue eyes and fair skin have a much higher risk for skin cancer due to sun exposure susceptibility versus those of dark hair, dark eyes and darker skin.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
And of course my sis, being more healthy by far than I am for decades, is already on it and planning to make her own chocolate and other snackfoods completely from scratch.
There are some things that are good to make on your own, others that are terrible.
chocolate and butter being two that are terrible.
I hope for her sake you're wrong. She usually makes some pretty good homemade treats. And she loves her chocolate.0 -
well, if she has the money to buy a conching machine, then yeah, making your own chocolate is fine. provided you don't mind occasional cockroach infestations.0
-
-
well, if you aren't conching it, you aren't making good chocolate.
(Yes, I just implied Taza is not good chocolate, it's hipster junk.)
The cheapest concher I've seen that was suitable for a home was like $8k used, which is a touch steep for my budget just so I can make some mediocre chocolate. (Because mediocre is the best any home cook can make thanks to the cocao commodity market.)0 -
well, if you aren't conching it, you aren't making good chocolate.
(Yes, I just implied Taza is not good chocolate, it's hipster junk.)
The cheapest concher I've seen that was suitable for a home was like $8k used, which is a touch steep for my budget just so I can make some mediocre chocolate. (Because mediocre is the best any home cook can make thanks to the cocao commodity market.)
8k? Yikes. Not likely then! I had no idea making good chocolate at home required anything special. That's a shame.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »All that will happen here is that some emulsifiers may be changed provided that the studied translate to humans, which they may or may not.
My concern is that they would just change to another less studied emulsifier which will then later be shown to be just as bad if not worse. It seems like every few years we find out another additive to highly processed foods is actually pretty bad for us (certain food dyes, trans-fats, etc.).herrspoons wrote: »Bottom line is a microwave meal now and then isn't a problem.
No arguments there.0 -
It's one of those things that to make a quality product you need both access to good ingredients (which are completely locked up by commercial producers) and technology. granted, said tech is like 200 years old, but it's essential nonetheless.well, if you aren't conching it, you aren't making good chocolate.
(Yes, I just implied Taza is not good chocolate, it's hipster junk.)
The cheapest concher I've seen that was suitable for a home was like $8k used, which is a touch steep for my budget just so I can make some mediocre chocolate. (Because mediocre is the best any home cook can make thanks to the cocao commodity market.)
8k? Yikes. Not likely then! I had no idea making good chocolate at home required anything special. That's a shame.
Butter is another of those classic examples of something seemingly easy to make, but not something for the home cook to make.
0 -
Why did I even click this thread? I'm drooling reading "chocolate making"
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »All that will happen here is that some emulsifiers may be changed provided that the studied translate to humans, which they may or may not.
My concern is that they would just change to another less studied emulsifier which will then later be shown to be just as bad if not worse. It seems like every few years we find out another additive to highly processed foods is actually pretty bad for us (certain food dyes, trans-fats, etc.).herrspoons wrote: »Bottom line is a microwave meal now and then isn't a problem.
No arguments there.
The key phrase being "now and then". I don't think most folks eat heavily processed foods like the microwave meals "now and then".0 -
then they should be re-educated.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »All that will happen here is that some emulsifiers may be changed provided that the studied translate to humans, which they may or may not.
My concern is that they would just change to another less studied emulsifier which will then later be shown to be just as bad if not worse. It seems like every few years we find out another additive to highly processed foods is actually pretty bad for us (certain food dyes, trans-fats, etc.).herrspoons wrote: »Bottom line is a microwave meal now and then isn't a problem.
No arguments there.
The key phrase being "now and then". I don't think most folks eat heavily processed foods like the microwave meals "now and then".
Forcibly.
0 -
My grandmother use to make butter and of course I did the grunt work manually and it helped her keep an eye on me, instead of watching how close I could get to the bull and get back to the fence in time. Butter is a life saver you know.
It's one of those things that to make a quality product you need both access to good ingredients (which are completely locked up by commercial producers) and technology. granted, said tech is like 200 years old, but it's essential nonetheless.well, if you aren't conching it, you aren't making good chocolate.
(Yes, I just implied Taza is not good chocolate, it's hipster junk.)
The cheapest concher I've seen that was suitable for a home was like $8k used, which is a touch steep for my budget just so I can make some mediocre chocolate. (Because mediocre is the best any home cook can make thanks to the cocao commodity market.)
8k? Yikes. Not likely then! I had no idea making good chocolate at home required anything special. That's a shame.
Butter is another of those classic examples of something seemingly easy to make, but not something for the home cook to make.
0 -
With respect to the heavily processed convenience foods: consider diet plans like Jenny Craig. The entire DIET is made up of such foods.0
-
I don't like Trader Joe's for political reasons, but they do seem to have some preservative and additive free chocolate bars. Whole Foods needs to play catch up if they don't.0
-
I had a microwaved food product once.herrspoons wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »All that will happen here is that some emulsifiers may be changed provided that the studied translate to humans, which they may or may not.
My concern is that they would just change to another less studied emulsifier which will then later be shown to be just as bad if not worse. It seems like every few years we find out another additive to highly processed foods is actually pretty bad for us (certain food dyes, trans-fats, etc.).herrspoons wrote: »Bottom line is a microwave meal now and then isn't a problem.
No arguments there.
The key phrase being "now and then". I don't think most folks eat heavily processed foods like the microwave meals "now and then".
On what basis? Most people I know do.
0 -
haha, nice.neanderthin wrote: »
My grandmother use to make butter and of course I did the grunt work manually and it helped her keep an eye on me, instead of watching how close I could get to the bull and get back to the fence in time. Butter is a life saver you know.
It's one of those things that to make a quality product you need both access to good ingredients (which are completely locked up by commercial producers) and technology. granted, said tech is like 200 years old, but it's essential nonetheless.well, if you aren't conching it, you aren't making good chocolate.
(Yes, I just implied Taza is not good chocolate, it's hipster junk.)
The cheapest concher I've seen that was suitable for a home was like $8k used, which is a touch steep for my budget just so I can make some mediocre chocolate. (Because mediocre is the best any home cook can make thanks to the cocao commodity market.)
8k? Yikes. Not likely then! I had no idea making good chocolate at home required anything special. That's a shame.
Butter is another of those classic examples of something seemingly easy to make, but not something for the home cook to make.
If I had cattle, i'd probably make my own butter more often, but as it is, the investment for raw cream, the days spent storing it as I culture it, then the volume loss once processed into butter. It just doesn't make sense, particularly since it's easier to just buy better butter, and it's cheaper.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »All that will happen here is that some emulsifiers may be changed provided that the studied translate to humans, which they may or may not.
My concern is that they would just change to another less studied emulsifier which will then later be shown to be just as bad if not worse. It seems like every few years we find out another additive to highly processed foods is actually pretty bad for us (certain food dyes, trans-fats, etc.).herrspoons wrote: »Bottom line is a microwave meal now and then isn't a problem.
No arguments there.
The key phrase being "now and then". I don't think most folks eat heavily processed foods like the microwave meals "now and then".
On what basis? Most people I know do.
The grocery store shelves. CHOCK FULL of boxed foods and frozen foods. Someone's eating them. My nephew ONLY eats boxed and frozen meals.0 -
They don't pay a living wage or want to provide decent health insurance for the people who actually make their money for them.Actually scratch part of that, double checked, they aren't so bad on wage, they just got cranky about the health insurance.
However, back on topic, I went and reread the article:
"The team fed mice two very commonly used emulsifiers, polysorbate 80 and carboxymethylcellulsose, at doses seeking to model the broad consumption of the numerous emulsifiers that are incorporated into almost all processed foods. They observed that emulsifier consumption changed the species composition of the gut microbiota and did so in a manner that made it more pro-inflammatory. The altered microbiota had enhanced capacity to digest and infiltrate the dense mucus layer that lines the intestine, which is normally, largely devoid of bacteria. Alterations in bacterial species resulted in bacteria expressing more flagellin and lipopolysaccharide, which can activate pro-inflammatory gene expression by the immune system."
Unless one of those two chemicals is a fancy way of saying soy lecithin or is identical or nearly so to it, a lot of chocolate might be okay.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »All that will happen here is that some emulsifiers may be changed provided that the studied translate to humans, which they may or may not.
My concern is that they would just change to another less studied emulsifier which will then later be shown to be just as bad if not worse. It seems like every few years we find out another additive to highly processed foods is actually pretty bad for us (certain food dyes, trans-fats, etc.).herrspoons wrote: »Bottom line is a microwave meal now and then isn't a problem.
No arguments there.
The key phrase being "now and then". I don't think most folks eat heavily processed foods like the microwave meals "now and then".
On what basis? Most people I know do.
The grocery store shelves. CHOCK FULL of boxed foods and frozen foods. Someone's eating them. My nephew ONLY eats boxed and frozen meals.
... parenting?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions