5 replies to this topic

[zoolander]

I would like to open a discussion related to the various forms in which we can gain various nutrients. I'm mainly referring to the micro nutrients in our diet.

Of course we can get our micro and macro nutrients from whole foods and whole food products. Some will argue though that these are not these best place to get high concentrations of nutrients and in some cases it's almost impossible to get what we would call "optimal" levels of certain nutrients from the diet. For example, vitamin E. On top of the time that goes into carefully structuring a nutrient dense diet you have other factors that rob the whole food of nutrients. Growing conditions, Travel time to store shelves, shelf life and processing of foods. All these can modify the nutrient content of food. So is food the best choice? I'm not in any way suggesting that we not eat whole food. That would be ridiculous. In fact I believe that we should do our best to get as many nutrients as we can from the food that we eat first and foremost before attempting other means. They're my thoughts and beliefs though and I'm not here to push my thoughts and belief. I'm here to open what I hope to be a stimulating discussion about nutrient choice.

there are many different forms that we can get our nutrients from. I've mentioned whole foods already but what about functional foods?

from wikipedia...."A Functional food or medicinal food is any fresh or processed food claimed to have a health-promoting and/or disease-preventing property beyond the basic nutritional function of supplying nutrients, although there is no consensus on an exact definition of the term."

In general, the functional foods are foods that might be fortified with other nutrients to increase the foods health benefit. For example, Vitamin D fortified milk.

What about Nutraceuticals?

Again from wikipedia...."Nutraceutical is a portmanteau of "nutrition" and "pharmaceutical" and refers to foods claimed to have a medicinal effect on human health. Such foods are also called functional foods. It can also refer to individual chemicals present in common foods. Many such nutraceuticals are phytonutrients.The name was coined by Dr. Stephen Defelice in 1989. Examples of claims made for nutraceuticals are red wine (resveratrol) as an antioxidant and an anticholesterolemic, broccoli (sulforaphane) as a cancer preventative, and soy and clover (isoflavonoids) to improve arterial health in women."

An example is given above for nutraceutical. We are all familiar with resveratrol so I don't need to go into that.

I don't know if this has been classified yet and it may perhaps fall under the term "functional Food" but what about a nutraceutical powder that you add to a food or liquid nutrient? An example of this would be say, Jarrow Berry High powder that is a powder made from freeze dried berries and other fruits. What happens when this is added to your breakfast cereal or a glass of soy milk?

and then of course we have supplements.

What are you thoughts about these nutrient choices? What would you consider the positives and/or negatives? Where's the science?

I'm interested in hearing what people have to say and look forward to watching this discussion

[caston]

A lot of good foods are hard to get. I personally think that food that grows in the wild is much heathier than food grown in modern agriculture.

For instance the kakadu plum which has been found to have the highest vitamin C concentration of any fruit of vegetable in the world yet when grown in agriculture actually has a lower vitamin C content that the plums found in the wild.

There are also superfoods that we could benefit from like Maca http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maca

And staple grains like Hatu Mugi also known as Yi Yi ren or Chinese pearl barely.

I think that there are so many Phytonutrients that can help us fight cancer and destroy ROS.

There are enzymes in plants that could form the basis of third generation sunscreens that provide full protection from the harmful rays in the entire electromagnetic spectrum without the generation of additional ROS species.

I think we can learn just as much about immortality by studying plants as we can animals.

[mitkat]

Zoo, you read my mind. I just went to the Royal Agricultural Fair in Toronto, and besides from the interesting farm animals, I had a great chance to talk to a PhD manning a functional foods both for a federal organization and the University of Guelph, who does lots of food research, agriculture, horticulture, etc. We got to talking about phytonutrients and functional foods.

he had a nice looking crusty bread that had an interesting colour to it - I ate some, so did my gf, then he pulled out a container of grape seed extract - it was baked right in! No real taste difference! Functional foods and nutraceuticals are great products and "the wave of the future", IMHO. This is an awesome thread idea and I look forward to contributing more.

I personally think that food that grows in the wild is much heathier than food grown in modern agriculture.

Caston, I agree with you, however everyone eating from the wild is simply no longer possible due to population density and land allocation. I am a huge proponent of organic farming as it is much closer to that "wild" state the crops grow and really thrive in, and now that a major EU study proves organic food proven healthier, we can focus on more truly functional methods of agriculture that can increase nutrient density whilst saving space, or grow plants and fish synergistically in addition to more traditional means.

Edited by mitkat, 15 November 2007 - 01:07 PM.

[caston]

mitkat: Here in Western Australia we have enormous amounts of land but the government won't (or will very slowly) release it it response the massive housing shortage due to the mining/materials boom.

I thought about the possibility of "guerrilla agriculture" that is growing patches of certain superfoods in certain places where they are unlikely to be disturbed and geo caching their location. Sure people will be looking for pot and magic mushies but who would go out hunting/ripping for kakadu plums?

There would be a lot of stuff to consider everything from respecting the environment already there (making sure growing something that is already native etc) to ensuring your crop doesn't get eaten by other animals and insects.

Also have you thought much about phytochelatins?

I've read that heart disease rather than being caused by cholestoral is largely caused by soft tissue calcification. Perhaps we can find a phytochelatin in plants to help us rid our bodies of unwanted calcium.

Edited by caston, 15 November 2007 - 02:11 PM.

[ajnast4r]

my personal opinion, and the opinion that seems to be the most solid and science backed, is that majority of nutrients should come from whole foods. we know now that wildcrafted and organically grown food is considerably more nutrient dense when compared to conventionally grown food, so it becomes much easier to hit our daily nutrient goals when we switch certain convential foods to organic foods. imo its infinitely more important, when compared to planning a supplement routine, that people learn to identify what foods [they enjoy] are the most nutrient dense and plan a solid diet around those foods.

i dont buy into the 'functional food' or 'superfood' thing, i personally think this is a marketing ploy to take advantage of people who dont have a thorough understanding of nutrition and phytopharmacology. we are finding that basically all fruits and vegetables contain substances that are health promoting/disease preventing, beyond their basic nutritional functions...

i obviously believe a [moderately dosed] multi vitamin/mineral is a good idea for everyone... but im not convinced the mega doses we commonly see people taking are a good idea. i've seen nothing but anecdotal evidence that says mega dosing will do any good, other than in the treatment of specific diseased states... i think later on down the line that we're gonna find that the huge doses of things like synthetic B vitamins & ascorbic acid are actually going to cause more diseases than they are preventing.

i also dont buy into the idea that the protein and polysaccharide bound nutrients & nutrient complexes we find in food function exactly the same in the body as the synthetic isolates we see used as supplements, regardless of whether they are defined molecules or not... i can think of a number of examples where absorption, retention and excretion ratios and times are different between the two.

Edited by ajnast4r, 15 November 2007 - 04:00 PM.

[zoolander]

I agree with all of the above comments.

What about correcting nutrient losses with fortifacation?

A bit of a side track.....A young girl in the lab downstairs is creating a chocolate with a higher catechin content. I like this idea. Rather than popping a handful of supplements we could sit down and smell, taste and feel the texture of a solid object. Same goes for the crusty bread with grape seed extract in it.