The meaning of the study is nearly impossible to interpret. Because it is a meta study the meaning of "high" and "low" are not defined and it will vary among the studies considered. Some may have had more extreme "low" groups than others. It is possible the results may have resulted from only certain conditions. Most likely the "high" were actually "typical" amounts of sodium; it is important not to read in to "high" as "eat more salt."
Also, because this was a meta-study, the diet was not controlled. My gut feeling is that the increases in cholesterol and triglycerides were likely due to participants, deprived of salty foods, seeking comfort in other types of junk food, notably refined carbohydrate (esp. sugary) foods.
This suggests to me the importance of not giving the simplistic dietary advice "eat less salt." But rather provide more comprehensive recommendations regarding what to eat. For example, the emphasis in the DASH diet is to increase fruits and vegetables, include nuts, seeds, and legumes, and keep grains whole.View Thread
Soy products are in general a controversial class of foods. So, you will continue to find conflicting opinions. And it is a complex question. Good for you/bad for you compared to what? What else is in the diet? What kind of soy? Some people believe that while fermented soy products are good for you, modern soy products may not be. Unless you have a soy allergy/sensitivity, there's nothing about soy or soy food products which pose an immediate threat. The evidence for/against consuming soy and long term outcomes isn't strong one way or another. When you read pros and cons, consider carefully the quality of the source and the severity of the claim. Is it a "may have some small effect"? That suggests you should "watch this space," but not compelling enough to change your diet.
The general consensus is that a diet with a variety of foods, especially rich in fruits and vegetables, as close to fresh as reasonable is good. Whether that includes soy is up to you.View Thread
The recommended limit for children 4 - 8 years old is 1900 mg per day. So, the two Ramen servings are enough to reach that limit. You say you are most worried about the soups, but all of the foods you mentioned are high in sodium and low in nutrition. Five can be a difficult age for getting cooperation with good food habits, but it is also an important age for instilling good food habits.View Thread
The concept is called "upper limit." The concept of upper limit for vitamins and minerals is that if you take in that amount, it is a safety margin well below what has been shown to cause harm. Different vitamins have different upper limits, and a few have none.
There's a myth that "water soluble vitamins are safe in large amounts and fat soluble require caution." In reality they have to be looked at case-by-case. E.g., vitamin K (fat soluble) has no upper limit. Water soluble niacin has an upper limit just 2 times the RDA.
Other upper limits:
Vitamin D - 100 mcg,* about 10 times the "daily value" on food labels.
Vitamin E - 1000 mg, about 66 times DV
Vitamin B-6 - 100 mg, about 60 times DV
There are no known adverse affects for taking large doses of B1 (thiamin), B2 (riboflavin), B5 (pantothenic acid), or B12.
> She said she got it from the internet so it can't be wrong.
That is funny!
> After all if the teacher says it she has got to be correct right?
I still remember as a kid knowing several times when teachers were teaching me incorrect "facts."
The fruit/vegetable controversy is long standing. The difference is semantics. Botanically a fruit is the seed bearing part of a plant. The well known example of the controversy that this introduces is the tomato. It is somewhat common for people to talk about tomatoes really being a fruit. This does mean that cucumbers, peppers, summer squash are all fruit -- botanically.
But culinarily we make a different distinction. When we talk about fruits vs. vegetables in the kitchen, you'll find tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, summer squash in the vegetable section of your cook book. What we call "fruit" in the kitchen is generally sweet. Fruits are more likely to be eaten raw and vegetables more likely to be cooked, but obviously that distinction can go either way. Fruits are more likely to be served as stand alone snacks and vegetables more likely to be part of a meal, but again that can go either way. Fruits are more likely to be part of dessert than vegetables. The lines really are arbitrary.
Nutritionally, the characteristics of tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, summer squash, etc align better with the culinary definition than the botanical definition. In general, fruits are higher in sugar and often higher in vitamin C while vegetables are often very low calorie (except starchy ones) and often higher in carotenoids like beta carotene. Tomatoes really do straddle both sides of that fence and I always tell people they can assign tomatoes to fruit or vegetable whichever suits their need. Mother nature is not at all confined by our arbitrary human classifications. Peppers are good sources of vitamin C. Apricots are good sources of carotenes. etc.
Coconuts, by the way, are not considered nuts. "Beans" as in "string beans" are seed bearing and therefore botanically fruit, though culinarily and nutritionally vegetables. But most other beans we eat, we are just eating the seed, not the fruit part of the plant. Corn is even trickier. The cob is the botanical fruit of the plant. When you cut the seeds off of sweet corn, we call it culinarily a vegetable. If it dries and we grind it into flour, we call it a grain.
Those who feel the need to have a clear answer to the fruit/vegetable question will cling to the botanical definition. But they'll have trouble communicating in the real world where that distinction is rarely used.View Thread
As a kid, when the rest of my family would eat the chocolate ice cream, I would eat the vanilla. Now, I know it depends on the quality of the chocolate. If it is really good quality chocolate, chocolate hands down. If it is poor quality chocolate (most is), I'll take the vanilla.View Thread
I have seen it. It has no affect on me personally. But I'm not surprised by it.
The HFCS paranoia bandwagon is large.
I've often seen people complain "HFCS is in everything." (Really, it isn't in my apple, my steak, my oatmeal, my carrots, ....?) And more specifically lament that "All breads are full of HFCS." Really? It never seemed to be in the breads I was buying and I made no specific effort to avoid it. And it couldn't be more than a couple of grams given the way bread is made.
For the small amount of sweetener in bread worrying about the source of the sweetener seemed irrational.
Regardless, the desire for (market for) "No HFCS Bread" was clear.
A question for you: do you think commercial bread vendors are stating sugar content based on composition calculations, or chemical analysis. That is, with bread, since part of the purpose of the sugar is to feed the yeast, if you put in 5 grams of sugar per 2 slices, the end product would have somewhat less than 5 grams per 2 slices.
I suspect it is based on composition calculations because I'm not sure the chemical assays would give them good "sugar" numbers in the presence of all the starch.
Have you ever seen an analysis of how much sugar the yeast consume? On the one hand, it seems like a lot given all the CO2 they emit. On the other hand, I'm thinking it can't be that high a percent because the sweetener wouldn't affect the bread quality if it were mostly used up by the yeast.View Thread
A couple of years ago, I read Wendy's well thought out position stand on the matter. Basically, they said they would comply if a ruling came into play and they were concerned for their patrons' health. However, their main point was that in most cases, a number on a board is not necessarily correct or meaningful.
Any given option may be purchased with customizations: e.g., No mayo. It may even be served with an option that the user may use some or all of: Nuts/Dressing for a salad. Many foods are sold in combos. In short, the amount of math necessary to figure out what is actually taken is not simple and most people probably aren't really going to take the effort to put it all together, and they are likely to put the wrong numbers together.
Furthermore, Wendy's argued that while calories are important to many consumers others want to know about saturated fat, fat grams, carb grams, sugar grams, trans fat, sodium, fiber, etc.
So, Wendy's argued that the more sensible solution was to provide the numbers on a separate sheet (which they were already doing) with all the common numbers that people wanted broken down to the details that numbers on a board could not provide.
I agree with them.
On the other hand, I do suspect numbers on the boards will result in some reformulations. There will probably be some items that the restauranteurs will realize the posted values affect sales and they may rework them to get under certain thresholds. In that way, it might help by creating a general downward trend in the more extreme calorie/sodium numbers.View Thread