Welcome to Straight Talk on Health. I’m your host Dr. Chet Zelasko. Straight Talk on Health is a joint production with WGVU in Grand Rapids MI. I examine the practical application of health information. Nutrition. Exercise. Diet. Supplementation. I look at the science behind them and let you know whether it’s something to consider or not. You can check out other things that I do on my website Drchet.com and sign up for my free emails.
In the past couple of weeks, I’ve been listening to a variety of health-related podcasts. I’m not going to name names because every one had some merit. One just went from one topic to another about the benefits of the ketogenic diet; no matter the issue, the ketogenic diet was going to be part of the solution one way or another. That’s just not a realistic approach. It ignores genetics as well as the limits of human physiology and biochemistry to adapt given the variety of foods available today. About 15 years ago, a scientist who studies coprolites said in an interview that early humans in desert areas ate cactus as a source of water and protein. Based on analysis of their coprolites, that’s fossilized poop, they ate up to 120 grams and more of fiber per day. Can you imagine doing that today? Besides never leaving the bathroom, it’s not practical. The ketogenic diet, especially the carnivore version, is the same thing. It’s possible but not practical nor necessary. We don’t know as much as we think we know about diet yet except for one thing: one size does not fit all.
Another simply criticized any research that had to do with losing weight or what could be termed ultra-processed foods. Just two people who criticized the medical and healthcare communities for harping on seed oils, UPF, losing weight and anything associated with those industries. They said a lot but couldn’t back any of it up with a modicum of research.I could only listen to one episode because there was really no redeeming value to it.
Then I found one that was so science-driven, it was a real snoozer unless you had a strong interest in the topic. That’s the one that caught my attention. I had to break it up into parts to listen to two episodes but while the delivery was like watching paint dry, the knowledge it shared was based on research and science. I loved it, just like a favorite dessert. Just a little at a time.
The host is a physician and he was tackling a topic I’m going to cover in a future episode: how much protein should we eat every day? Everyone has an opinion but based on the science, much of them how protein intake should change throughout our lifespan. But as with everything, I have to check the research they cited first before I make a decision—and there is a lot of it—and the research they didn’t cite.
But there were elements that I thought were brilliant, so I’ll share them now. The physician and a leading expert were discussing the state of health information. They said that one thing or another was pitched as a villain at various times and for right now, it appears to be protein—again. Others are things I’ve addressed as well: carbohydrates, seed oils—at least twice, fats in general, food additives, and artificial sweeteners. One health influencer starts off a critique, and everyone jumps in. I relate to that one because I’m often asked my opinion on these topics. The scientists said a group of fellow researchers came to this conclusion about interpreting the research in any area but especially nutrition. Here’s what they concluded:
Only three things matter when it comes to nutrition or any research; the data, the methodology used to collect the data, and the logic connecting the data to the conclusions being made. Everything else is tangential.
There’s always something to criticize about any type of nutrition research, from the methods used to the statistics to the logic used in the formation of, and the conclusions of the study. Have you heard me rant about food frequency questionnaires? Those criticisms can be irrelevant to the actual study and are just someone’s pet peeve this week. Everybody’s a critic.
One of the oft-repeated comments by many nutritional experts goes something like this: “If you can’t say it, don’t eat it.” A further expansion of that is “If there are ingredients you don’t recognize on the nutrition label, don’t eat that food.”
The idea is that the longer the list of ingredients with more difficulty to pronounce the names, the more likely it’s highly processed and could be an ultra-processed food. I understand that concept, so let’s test it out right now. I’ll stick to the list of ingredients. See if you can guess this mystery food
The serving size is 3.3 ounces. Here is the list of ingredients: Sugar (both fructose, glucose), ascorbic acid, phyllo-quin-one, homo-galactu-ronans and rham-no-galactu-ronans, hemicellulose, betaine, cyanidin-3-galactoside beta-cryptoxanthin, chlorogenic acid, coumaric acid, caffeic acid, phloridzin (flo-ri-dzin), and ash.
How many could you pronounce? I had to type them out phonetically just to get thru the list myself. How many did you recognize? Sugar, for sure. Probably ascorbic acid as a preservative, another name for vitamin C. But the rest?
What you’ve listened to are the ingredients in an apple—if they actually put the ingredients on the label of apples. Those are the names of the fibers, prebiotics, and the phytonutrients found in just about every type of red apple. Phylloquinone is vitamin K. homo-galac-tu-ronans are found in the fiber pectin. Hemicellulose is a fiber. Betaine, also known as trimethylglycine, is a naturally occurring amino acid derivative in foods. It is critical to the methylation process as well as many others. Chlorogenic acid is an antioxidant and has been studied to have anti-inflammatory characteristics. I think we should probably eat more apples whether we can pronounce the ingredients or not.
I’m not discounting the advice attributed several people over the years about pronouncing ingredients, but oversimplification isn’t the answer. They just become talking points for media gurus and wannabe influencers. Much of the time they get it wrong. Remember the ruckus about the unfounded concern about maltodextrin? The gurus failed to explain the difference between maltodextrin as a sugar and resistant maltodextrin used as a starch and fiber ingredient in products they lumped altogether. They want to get noticed to get more clicks. The truth doesn’t always seem to matter.
Their true challenge is to prove that any ingredient deemed as “Generally Regarded As Safe” is not safe—but not with testimonials or research on animals. They need research that connects label ingredients with known conditions and diseases that impact humans. That would be helpful. Otherwise, it’s just tangential commentary that serves only the purpose of the person doing the talking. Just know that tomorrow, it will be something else that they want to get noticed about. Such as the Pink Salt Trick to lose weight that is currently flying from one influencer to another. The only thing drinking pink salt mixed in water, with or without lemons or honey, will get you is high blood pressure if you’re sodium sensitive.
That’s all the time I have for this episode. If you like this podcast, please hit the share button and tell your friends and colleagues about it. Until next time, this is Dr. Chet Zelasko saying health is a choice. Choose wisely today and every day.
