"The new generation of healthy eaters is eschewing old adages about relying on the usual fruits to keep the doctor away. Instead, they are adopting the Wild Blueberry as their new dietary favorite. Promising research about the Wild Blueberry has encouraged today's eaters to go "wild" over the nutrient-rich fruit. New interest in eating well and maintaining health by eating whole foods, natural foods, and organic foods, as well as getting the optimum number of servings of fruits and vegetables per day, has contributed to the swell of interest, prompting many to seek original ways to integrate Wild Blueberries into their diet."And what is all the promotion about?
"Recent discoveries that attribute potential health benefits to antioxidants such as anthocyanin, anti-inflammatories and other natural compounds found in the deep blue pigment of Wild Blueberries, are adding to its allure."No mention, though, about the "recent discoveries that attribute potential health HARMS to antioxidants..."
So who wrote it?
Maybe...
"Wild Blueberry Association of North America"Not a maybe.
A definite "Yes."
Posts
6 comments:
It turns out that there is overwhelming evidence from numerous international studies that anthocyanins and related antioxidants have powerful anti-aging effects at a cellular level.
It turns out that very long-lived species, e.g. Arctica islandica, do have unusually efficient antioxidant defenses. The key to “negligible” senescence: Long-lived molluscs have much higher antioxidant capacities than short-lived molluscs, suggesting a mechanism for slower senescence.
Research published in PNAS demonstrates that curbing harmful antioxidant processes in the brain's vasculature can reverse some of the cognitive decline associated with Alzheimer's disease. Formerly "demented" mice regained their healthy, exploratory behaviors, just as non-demented mice do. According to the authors, the findings suggest that neurological damage from Alzheimer's may not be permanent and might even be reversed through antioxidant treatment.
Glaxo recently acquired Sirtris, maker of red wine-based drug for aging. "Through the acquisition of Sirtris, GlaxoSmithKline will significantly enhance its metabolic, neurology, immunology and inflammation research efforts by establishing a presence in the field of sirtuins, a recently discovered class of enzymes that are believed to be involved in the aging process,".
I wonder how much in depth research you have done on this subject and what evidence to the contrary you are basing your arguments on.
Should we also not forget that berries are simply not a very high margin product to sell. It's hard to get rich selling berries. Health stores are simply more interested in selling nutraceuticals (e.g. antioxidant pills containing more powdered filler than the product they claim to be providing) at $20 than blueberries at $2; cosmetic stores would rather recommend their customers to buy a jar of miracle cream for $60; and medical salesmen ("doctors") are more likely to prescribe high priced pharmaceuticals to cure than recommend blueberries to prevent.
Hopefully one of the berry growers' association will realise that inviting the medical community to all expenses paid "conferences" at five star hotels in Swiss ski resorts during the winter season is the way to win friends and influence people. In their naivity, these farming industry organisations believe that simply making use of a wealth of scientific evidence in support of its members is enough.
Hello, dl.
Thanks for visiting Fitness watch.
As is so common, as an apparent advocate of anti-oxidants, much is said, little is proven.
"Overwhelming evidence," "at a cellular level," "Arctica Islandica," etc.
One is a baseless promotion, another in vitro or inapplicable to the entire organism or of uncertain effects in real life, the third ain't even human and merely an association, not proof.
And that is the problem.
Fact is, no one knows with certainty, though peer-reviewed and juried data that passed sufficient muster to get published in prestigious and trusted medical journals speak otherwise.
Follow the links in the posting.
Clearly, if you read Fitness Watch, I am no cheerleader for sick care.
Antioxidants and other touted "health" products are of uncertain value and may be harmful. They remain not the point.
At best, that stuff composes the tail that some would have wag the nutritional dog.
What we do know with substantial certainty is that on a population-basis, a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 results in the lowest likelihood of developing certain bad illnesses.
How you get there still has not been shown to make a significant difference.
If you want to achieve that from berries, good for you. If you want to gulp resveratrol, so be it.
But be a porker on blueberries and all the anti-oxidants in them will not make a floormat's worth of difference since your car sucks.
No disagreeing with your Calories-In vs Calories-Out thesis. The only complexity to this formula appears to be added by those looking to sell diet plans and recipe books.
However the natural anti-oxidant chemicals found in berries and other plants are akin to the oil in your engine, to follow your analogy, without which the car seizes up, regardless of how much or little gas you put in the tank. It is becoming clear that oxidative stress is a major factor, not only in the accelerated aging of those whose diets are devoid of antioxidants but also in the diseases they suffer from. Our Western diets have not only become excessive in calorie intake, they have also become bankrupt of nutrition - particularly antioxidants.
As humans it seems that we have a tendency to seek out formulaic solutions. Hence advertisers appeal to us with miracle solutions in packages, pills and creams. However that a dietary supplement pill can replace the complex living chemistry of a plant cell is immediately ridiculous. It should not surprise us at all that studies will simulataneously reveal that supplements pills are ineffective or even harmful, while real fruits and vegetables are beneficial.
Of the science - much is said, little is read might be a better summary. The challenge as ever is not the message but how to be heard above the background of misinformation.
Hi, DL.
Thanks for the conversation.
What you say remains more speculative than Calories in, Calories out which is axiomatic per the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Further, I contend that it is far more certain that overweight/obesity contribute to unfitness, and by extension worse health, than any other matter or manner of eating.
Your comment:
"However the natural anti-oxidant chemicals found in berries and other plants are akin to the oil in your engine, to follow your analogy, without which the car seizes up, regardless of how much or little gas you put in the tank. It is becoming clear that oxidative stress is a major factor, not only in the accelerated aging of those whose diets are devoid of antioxidants but also in the diseases they suffer from. Our Western diets have not only become excessive in calorie intake, they have also become bankrupt of nutrition - particularly antioxidants."
Is simply conculsory and not unanimously supported by firm data, to wit, the many studies associating antioxidants with illnesses, i.e., worse health.
1+1 = 2, is certain. Antioxidant supplementation = improved health, is not.
(As a brief aside, the body normally and naturally generates free radicals and contains a system, developed over myriad generations of evolution or designed intelligently into it (depending on your belief system) to "handle" them.
Whether the conceit of human or corporate intervention is "needed" to "help" or "improve" is arguably hubristic.)
I am not saying, nor will I say, that either side is "correct."
I say that it remains unknown and will bet that for many, it will stay unknown long after they are dead.
So the matter, to me, boils down to what can be done to reliably improve people's nutritional fitness and by extension their health, without the distraction of more extreme belief systems, in which I include supplements, the promises of sick care, etc.
The one thing and one thing only is caloric control.
If people choose your berry-route, that is a choice of the road traveled. If they choose another to achieve a "healthy" BMI, I cannot say, and frankly, neither can you or anyone else, that they are less healthy for it.
I am unfamiliar with any data to suggest that the berry allergic age more rapidly than the rest of us or develop the certain bad illnesses that we use to define "unhealthy."
And just to put it out there, again, from my perspective anti-aging is a clear hoax.
That Glaxo is playing the resveratrol game, per your earlier post, is of no comfort to me.
And I have zero confidence that we currently possess the knowledge to predict the consequences, intended or otherwise, of voluntarily shoving supplements down our gullets or by any other access, into our bodies.
Supplements of all sorts, are for many "formulaic solutions... advertisers [use to] appeal to us with miracle solutions in packages, pills and creams" and the distractions used to prevent caloric control. ("If I eat 'poorly,' this vitamin will make up for it.")
Maybe they, supplements (apparently antioxidants in particular), are right for you.
Maybe not.
I contend that neither you nor anyone else will ever know with certainty.
There is more to say, but participation in other aspects of life is calling me.
I hope that you are and remain fit, that your life is one of participation.
If your belief in supplements adds to your enjoyment of life, good for you.
Be fit, be well.
Thanks, again, for visiting Fitness Watch.
Dear Dr Applebaum,
I share your healthy skepticism and indeed the anti-aging bandwagon is one that many have jumped upon with the usual slew of miracle cures etc. But before we throw the baby out with the bathwater, we must distinguish between scientific studies that are looking at the effects of antioxidants supplements in isolation and those which look at antioxidants supplied via natural foods such as berries. There is no evidence that eating more fresh fruit leads to poorer health, except perhaps in excess, to obesity.
You say "the body normally and naturally generates free radicals and contains a system, developed over myriad generations of evolution or designed intelligently into it (depending on your belief system) to "handle" them.".
This is of course correct, but assumes that the body is being nourished with what it evolved over myriad generations to eat naturally: raw foods such as fruit and vegetable, which have both calorific value and antioxidants as they are made of living cells.
What your argument fails to account for, is that the modern Western diets of the many contain woefully little in the way of unprocessed foods. A large proportion of the population is consuming nothing but processed food, which in the process of being fried, boiled, grilled, bottled or canned has most or all of its antioxidant capacity removed. Antioxidants by their nature are highly labile and are carefully compartmentalised within the cells of plant tissue. Animals in the wild do not eat cooked food.
It is not that eating berries causes anti-aging, it is that antioxidant depleted food actually accelerates aging. I am not advocating supplements, especially anything that comes in pill form. On the contrary, I am suggesting that an increase in antioxidant rich natural foods should be part of a normal diet.
Eating berries which contain exceptionally high concentrations of antioxidants merely restores the balance for people who otherwise consume very little.
Best rgds // DL
DL,
Thank you for your reply.
We have reached an impasse of sorts.
The fact is, given current knowledge, technology and abilities, the proof of your assertions is simply not going to happen.
I hope that I have conveyed my agnosticism re: antioxidants, their value and supplementation.
I do not know. I do not know that anyone knows. I do not believe that anyone will know during my lifetime.
I do not advocate tossing out the kid with the bathwater.
Yet, most people do, by electing to eat "healthy" foods, instead of eating healthily.
The first is unknowable, the second is, to my satisfaction based on over one million subjects followed for nearly a decade and a half, pretty well established and is related to BMI. Remember that "health" is a statistical concept and it, too, is unknowable (e.g., someone may think they are healthy because they are unaware of the pancreatic cancer growing inside).
Your argument excludes such matters as epigenetic changes, if this discipline is to be believed (your choice). I mention this not as a weakness per se, but as variables that may affect how people are affected by processed and unprocessed foods.
Further, "poor" countries where unprocessed foods are arguably more prevalent do not appear to have a "healthier" population.
As to "scientific studies" you invoke, recall that at Fitness Watch we believe that "Truth has a shelf life." So-called "science" has a way of being less than scientific from disproving over time, revelation of flawed methodology, etc.
It is a dangerous world filled with much more noise than information.
So what of all this matters?
I submit that the overarching goal, statistically speaking, is to achieve a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 and how one gets there is of lesser importance.
BMI data is simple data. Height and weight are pretty reliably measured and diseases are creatures of definition, in some ways similar, though admittedly not identical, to math axioms, e.g., 1+1=2.
Perhaps to your delight, it has been my experience that once people see success in defeating overweight/obesity as possible, many change how and what they eat, possibly moving closer to where you appear to be on the "what to eat" scale.
The key is making success possible which it plainly is not if one follows the advice of the experts. If you have an opportunity and are interested, I invite you to read my fitness rants, visit Oprahcide.com and see who won CACAs and why.
IMHO, these are the folks heaping nutritional homicide on the public.
Further, to make such success possible, for some people eating as they have with modifications gives them just the victory they need to think about eating differently (maybe your way even). An example of this approach can be seen if you follow the Fitness Watch entry linked to The Fast Food Weight Loss Guide.
This conversation with you has been enjoyable and I suggest that we move on, as friends, in agreement that it is best for people to eat healthily and that we will do so according to our own particular idioms.
Be well and best regards.
Post a Comment