You Ask, I Answer: Dyes/Farmed Salmon

Are the synthetic dyes [fed to farmed salmon] harmful?

I googled astaxanthin and found a website talking about how it's an antioxidant and prevents cancer and is necessary for the healthy growth of the farmed salmon.

Surely that can't be true.

-- Kristin
Via the blog

That is technically true, but there is more to this story.

While both astaxanthin and canthaxanthin are deemed safe by the Food & Drug Administration (although people trust that organization to varying degrees), certain concentrations of canthaxanthin have been associated with eye defects.

Interestingly, different countries have different ideas of how many parts per million of that synthetic dye are "safe."

That being said, the vast majority of salmon farmed in the United States and Europe is only fed astaxanthin.

In other parts of the world, though, farmed salmon is only fed canthaxanthin (it is the cheaper of the two dyes.)

I still would not be too worried. You would need to be eating a LOT of salmon dyed with canthaxanthin to be affected.

What all of this ties into, though, is another controversial topic – COOL (Country of Origin Labeling.)

Although it is required for all fish sold in the United States, I have seen it very sparingly in supermarkets.

As far as I am concerned, the core issue surrounding these food dyes isn't so much possible health repercussions, but rather truthful advertising to consumers.

If farmed salmon were to either remain gray or be dyed another color (say, white), then consumers would immediately know they are not purchasing a wild variety, and there would be no room for mislabeling (remember this infamous study by Marian Burros of The New York Times?).

Since farmed salmon is nutritionally inferior to its wild counterpart (more saturated fat, higher Omega 6 fatty acid content, lower Omega 3 fatty acid content), people should not be left in the dark.

This is not to say farmed salmon should completed avoided or viewed in the same light as deep fried fish nuggets, but consumers have a right to know exactly what they are putting on their plates.

You Ask, I Answer: Fish Oil Supplements/Metal Toxicity Cleansings

Yesterday I attended a talk given by an "applied clinical nutritionist" who works at a local pharmacy.

She really advocated the use of supplements for everyone (probably because the pharmacy she works at generates a lot of revenue through the sale of herbs/supplements and homeopathic remedies).

She recommended taking fish oil instead of flax because she said that flax requires an extra step to be processed by the body.

She said that some people's bodies aren't able to perform this extra step and you would never know one way or another, so she just prefers to stick with fish oil.

Since you often recommend flax, what are your thoughts?

She also talked about "cleansing" (the colon in particular).

Her recommendation wasn't about losing weight, but rather to flush out toxins, no matter how healthy your diet.

She said this is needed to flush out "toxins" that accumulate in our bodies from pesticides in food, air pollution, etc.

The cleanse involves eating certain kinds of foods (she wasn't specific) and taking some sort of supplements that help flush your colon, like magnesium (I think).

All of this sounded sort of unnecessary to me.

Is there any evidence that this type of cleanse is beneficial for people whose diets are already consist of nutritious, whole foods?

-- Kristin (last name withheld)
Austin, TX

Before I begin, let me thank Kristin for following up her question with an e-mail revealing the results of her own investigative research.

Turns out that acquiring the "applied clinical nutritionist" title is a simple task.

"It's a self paced certificate program through the Texas Chiropractic College. To earn the certificate, you must be a health care professional, or the staff or student of a health care professional (I suppose you could be a dental receptionist). You have to attend 7 seminars (100 hrs), take a test and pay $1400. In return, you get a shiny wall plaque," writes Kristin.

Sigh. Of course.

This is precisely why I strongly (I'm talking "The Incredible Hulk" strong) believe the American Dietetic Association needs to launch a multimillion dollar campaign raising awareness of what makes Registered Dietitians different from all these other empty titles.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of individuals in charge of booking and hiring speakers for wellness events, health fairs, and media outlets have absolutely no clue what the difference is between a Registered Dietitian, a "naturopath," or an applied clinical nutritionist.

Anyhow, time to answer Kristin's question.

As far as the fish vs. flax issue, I agree with the speaker... to a point.

It is true that the Omega-3 fats found in flaxseed (ALA) need to be converted by the body to DPA and EHA.

It is also accurate to say that the majority of people do not convert ALA efficiently.

A significant factor inhibiting conversion is that Omega 6 fatty acids compete with Omega 3 fatty acids for the same desaturase (conversion) enzymes.

Keeping in mind that our current food supply contributes an abundance of Omega 6, you can see why ALA --> DHA/EPA conversion isn't happening as optimally as we would expect.

That being said, I still recommend ground flax simply because most people don't consume much of ANY Omega-3's.

Simply put, ground flaxseeds are an effortless way to add some Omega 3's to a variety of foods (not everyone likes fish or wants to eat it.)

I also hope that the speaker's recommendation of taking fish oil supplements was mainly targeted at people who do not consume fish.

I would much rather you get your DHA and EPA from actual food (i.e.: tuna, salmon, sardines) first, and consider supplements a "second best" choice.

Furthermore, I hope she stressed that non-DHA/EPA sources of Omega-3's offer a wide array of nutrients.

Ditching walnuts and flaxseed and instead swallowing a spoonful of fish oil every morning isn't necessarily a smart swap.

What I COMPLETELY disagree with her on (and why I doubt she is an RD) is her colon cleanse recommendation. Ugh. Ugh. UGH!

It is unnecessary and not particularly healthy.

If people want to "flush out" their colons, all they need to do is consume more insoluble fiber and liquids. Plain and simple.

Not to mention, I would love to ask this woman how exactly toxins accumulate in a body with a regularly functioning liver and kidneys.

There is no evidence whatsoever supporting the belief that we need to cleanse ourselves of toxins.

What I find most illogical is that people who furiously support colon cleanses are self-proclaimed "health experts," who apparently fail to realize that colon cleansing eliminates all the HEALTHY bacteria in the human gut and can cause electrolyte imbalances!

If you'll excuse me, I now need to go center myself.

You Ask, I Answer: Tilapia

I understand the importance of eating fish that have good levels of Omega 3's for heart health.

I always read about salmon, tuna, and sardines, but not about other fish.

I like to eat tilapia. Is it a good source of Omega 3's?

-- Melissa Oswald
Buffalo, NY

Tilapia isn't generally a fish I recommend to people looking to improve heart health through higher intakes of Omega-3 fatty acids.

It's not that tilapia is inherently unhealthy. My recommendation simply comes back to the issue of fish farming.

You see, it's very rare to find wild tilapia, so you can bet that whether you're buying it at the supermarket or ordering it off the menu at a restaurant, you are getting a farmed version.

That's NOT good news. Rather than consuming their regular aquatic diet, these fish are being fed cheap, dependable corn.

This ultimately results in negative health consequences for consumers.

Earlier this year, a study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association found that the average Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio in a 3.5 ounce portion of farmed tilapia was a disconcerting 11:1 (wild salmon, meanwhile provides a 1:1 ratio.)

As I have explained in previous posts, dietary Omega 6:Omega 3 ratio plays a significant role in heart health (Cliff's Notes version: too much Omega-6 and not enough Omega-3 promotes inflammation, thereby increasing the risk of a number of diseases).

This is probably why you don't ever see tilapia mentioned in articles on heart-healthy fish.

You Ask, I Answer: Inflammation

My mum asked me to look into foods that increase or decrease inflammation and related chronic pain conditions.

I don't know if such a thing is even possible, and Google leads me to thousands of quacks and charlatans. Can you help?

-- Rachelle T.

Location Unknown

Certainly.

Nutrition plays an important role in promoting -- and reducing -- inflammation.

Before we even get to actual foods, though, it's important to address weight.

Excess body fat heightens inflammation, so working towards shedding any extra pounds is the first step in my book.

Foods that I suggest your mother eat sparingly include refined carbohydrates (mainly white flour and added sugars), saturated fats, trans fats, and Omega-6 fatty acids (found in most plant oils, nuts, and seeds.)

A point of clarity regarding Omega-6 fatty acids: although they absolutely serve a purpose (and are essential, meaning we can only get them from our diet), the traditional U.S. diet is overly abundant in them.

Moving on, then. There are also many foods that help manage -- and even decrease -- inflammation.

These include whole grains, monounsaturated fats (think avocados, olive oil, and peanut butter), Omega-3 fatty acids (walnuts, flaxseed, salmon, tofu, wheat germ, and some legumes) and a wide variety of fruits and vegetables.

In the case of fruits and vegetables, the more variety the better.

Why? Research suggests that different compounds (i.e.: anthocyanins in blueberries, carotenoids in sweet potatoes, and phenolics in tart cherries) can aid in the reduction of inflammation.

Keep in mind, though, that for optimal results, these foods should be consumed on a daily basis for a prolonged period.

Additionally, the above mentioned foods should not be consumed with excess calories or sugars (putting a spoonful of walnuts into a Coldstone ice cream bowl or having a Reese's peanut butter cup are not effective ways to manage inflammation.)

You Ask, I Answer: Soy

I have heard some forms of soy (i.e.: the fermented kinds) are more healthy than others.

I have also heard tofu is basically a processed product "cut" with the equivalent of plaster of Paris.

Soy and soy-based products are tooted by the supposed health conscious community as wonder foods, and i think people are often misinformed in regards to soy products being healthy.

For instance: those faux chicken patties. How can something so processed be healthy?

Wouldn’t a person be better off choosing an organic grain-fed chicken breast over something of this nature? likewise, organic soymilk [unsweetened of course] vs organic milk??

And what about soy estrogens???

-- Brooke Green
Brooklyn, NY

Thank you for bringing up the issue of “wonder foods.”

Although certain foods are more nutritious than others (quinoa surpasses white bread, for example,) I think it is dangerous to label anything as a “wonder food.”

Such a term inaccurately suggests such foods can be eaten in unlimited amounts.

Remember -- all calories, regardless of the source, add up.

Extra virgin olive oil certainly has its health benefits, but drowning a salad in 4 tablespoons of it adds 500 calories.

Anyhow, the key with soy -- like with any other food -- is to mainly consume it as minimally processed as possible.

This applies to other foods as well. Take potatoes as an example. It is obviously better to consume them baked and with their skin than out of a Pringles tube.

So, tempeh (fermented tofu) and edamame offer more nutrition than a processed soy product that could very well contain added sugars, excess sodium, and trans fat.

This can also be equated to whole grains.

Some people think a whole grain cookie is automatically healthier than a standard cookie. Not necessarily.

If the whole grain cookie has twice the calories, sugar, and trans fat of the standard cookie, the whole grain benefit is thwarted.

I consider the issue of faux chicken patties versus organic chicken breasts to be more about personal ethics than nutrition.

I think many people choosing faux meats do so out of a personal decision to not eat meat, rather than from a “what is less processed?" angle.

Keep in mind, though, that many times meat-based frozen products are nutritionally inferior to soy-based ones.

As far as tofu is concerned -- it is one thing to eat "tofu hot dogs" (which are highly processed and thereby high in sodium and chock full of preservatives,) but cubes of regular tofu (pictured, right) thrown into a vegetable stir fry is a great way for vegetarians to get protein, calcium, and Omega-3 fatty acids.

As for the soy-based estrogens, the only people who should be concerned are women living with breast cancer who consume four or more servings of soy on a daily basis.

Otherwise, there is absolutely no research showing that one or two daily servings of soy in a healthy individual poses any sort of health risk.

I don't recommend gobbling down oodles of soy every day because it contributes quite a bit of Omega 6 fatty acids to the diet (which in itself is not bad, but the typical US diet provides way too much of it and not enough Omega 3's -- nowhere near the ideal ratio.)

Checking in with Oprah

I recently told you about Oprah's 21-day vegan cleanse (which, apart from obviously shunning all animal-derived foods, also bans sugar, gluten, alcohol, and caffeine).

The talk show queen is blogging on her site and updating everyone on her progress.

Day 1 was fairly easy to traverse.

You certainly can't knock it as an unhealthy eating pattern.

That day alone includes standouts like oatmeal, blueberries, strawberries, wild rice, a baked potato, and olive oil.

As wonderfully whole as all those foods are, I have some concerns.

Despite providing sufficient calories (roughly 1,600), fiber, and protein, the total amounts of vitamin B12, vitamin D, and calcium do not meet requirements.

Additionally, such a heavy reliance on nuts (they are eaten at breakfast, lunch, dinner, and as a snack) really drives up the Omega-6 fatty acid content.

This is slightly troublesome because, apart from some walnuts at breakfast and olive oil as salad dressing, Omega-3 intake isn't that high.

Remember, the Omega-6 to Omega-3 ratio plays an important role in our health.

I would personally add flaxseed to breakfast and replace the pinenuts in the dinner salad with nori (or some other sort of seaweed, naturally rich in Omega 3 fatty acids.)

By the next day, things get interesting -- and a little unrealistic. Oprah and her exec producers (also doing this diet with her) get their very own vegan chef!

And, alas, I'm back to my original gripes with this entire "cleanse."

When you start banning multiple food groups and not allowing yourself to have gluten (the most bizarre part of this plan; there is no reason to give up gluten unless you have an intolerance to it) or sugar, you'll find that unless you are very experienced around a kitchen and alternative ingredients -- or hire a personal chef -- it is not easy to maintain a dietary lifestyle that is interesting, practical, healthy, and balanced.

For Oprah and her colleagues to go the personal chef route is a bit of a copout. They should attempt to do this on the average income of an adult in the United States.

Take this example -- on day two, Oprah and her fellow cleansers wake up to strawberry rhubarb wheat-free crepes.

Do you think that on a random Wednesday morning you'll find yourself concocting such a recipe in your kitchen at 7 AM? I doubt it.

A successful eating plan is not only nutritious and tasty, it also has to be convenient. What's so wrong about some whole or sprouted grain toast with peanut butter?

Or a bowl of whole grain cereal (slightly sweetened, say a measly 3 grams of sugar per serving) with soymilk and raisins?

In yesterday's blog entry, Oprah hints at another problem with these overly strict regimens (let me make something very clear: it is one thing to be vegan, but a whole other thing to be a vegan who abstains from sugar, coffee, alcohol, and gluten) -- they can render you defenseless outside the four walls of your home.

Oprah mentions flying to Las Vegas later this week and being slightly nervous about her choices.

I hope she prepares herself for an eye-opening experience.

Forget vegan-friendly, Vegas is barely vegetarian-friendly.

Even something as standard and semi fast food-ish as a veggie burger is hard to come by. The only place where I felt healthy cooking was a priority was the spa at the Venetian Hotel.

Otherwise, bring your own snacks!

I found today's entry to be cause for concern:

"I hit a wall today. Literally had to stand in my closet and bound the walls, the cabinets, the floor for a few minutes and take some deep breaths."

A well-planned, balanced, practical eating plan should not have you feeling like this on day four.

This is why I very much oppose overnight radical shifts. Not only is there no physiological benefit to banning things left and right from one day to the next, it also conjures up issues of self-flagellation and unnecessary deprivation that often accompany a lot of weight loss plans.

It particularly upsets me because it sends very erroneous messages: healthy eating is a chore, it involves giving up pleasures, it pushes your body to the limit.

Nonsense!

The path to healthy eating and smart choices is not always going to be smooth and easy -- it is perfectly common and understandable to have the occassional setback -- and extreme approaches such as this "cleanse" certainly don't help.

It's a shame that someone as influential and looked up to as Oprah isn't using her show as a platform to show that wellness and health can be achieved without personal chefs, swearing off foods, or feeling like the world is caving in on you.

Anyhow, Oprah has two more weeks to go. I'll be sure to follow her progress and keep you all in the loop.

You Ask, I Answer: Saturated Fat

So is 30 to 35 percent total fat from calories a moderate-fat diet and above 35 percent a high-fat diet?

How much fat, as a percentage of total calories, do you think is safe to consume?

What do you see as the safe upper limit for total fat intake?

How much saturated fat can one consume with out risking clogged arteries?

-- David Brown
Kalispell, MT

Since we are talking about ranges, there is room for fluidity.

Here is how I break it down.

Anything below 15 percent of total calories from fat falls under the “very low fat” category.

I classify the range between 15 and 30 percent of total calories from fat as "low-fat" (with, say, 16 percent being closer to “very low in fat” and 29 being very close to “moderate”).

The 30 – 40 range is "moderate", and anything above 40 is "high".

What makes your question much more complex, though, is that fat is by no means a simple nutrient.

I can not simply throw out a figure and say, “Consume 35 percent of calories from fat” without giving additional detail.

For example, make most of those fats mono and polyunsaturated, aim for an Omega-6 to Omega-3 ratio no higher than 5:1, and avoid artificial trans fats (some animal meats naturally contain trans fats, which I am not worried about).

If someone's “35 percent of total calories from fat” is mainly comprised of trans fats, I would certainly not describe it as healthy intake.

That same percentage consisting of mainly mono and polyunsaturated fats, however, would get two thumbs up.

This shouldn't come as a big shock to regular readers of this blog.

Besides, does anybody seriously think four strips of bacon or a quarter cup of half and half are healthier than a grilled wild salmon steak or half an avocado?

As for your safe upper limit question: you won't find a technical "Upper Limit" (how much of a nutrient it takes to have detrimental, rather than beneficial, health effects) for saturated fat.

However, the 10 percent figure (which, as I will explain a little later in more detail, basically recommends that people consume no more than 10 percent of total calories from saturated fat) serves as an Upper Limit.

Thereby, intakes of, say, 40 percent have not shown to be beneficial to health.

One main problem with mainstream talk about nutrition is that it oversimplifies nutrients, especially fats and carbohydrates.

After all, a carb is not a carb is not a carb. Oatmeal, bananas, and baked potatoes are very different from donuts and Jolly Ranchers.

The first three provide fiber, vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals. The last two are virtually empty calories.

This is why I strongly oppose blanket statements like, "carbs are bad." Really?

You mean to tell me that fruits, vegetables, and whole grains are no different than a cupcake?

It is also important to place nutrients in the right context.

Sports nutritionists and exercise physiologists agree, based on evidence-based research, that easily digestible carbohydrates that would normally not be outright recommended as highly nutritious (ie: white rice) can serve an important purpose after a strenuous workout.

Forego carbs after a very intense, long workout and glycogen stores are not fully restored. This is problematic, as it may result in the breakdown of muscle.

As for how much saturated fat someone can consume without risking clogged arteries, you have to, once again, frame it in the appropriate context.

I stand by the “make no more than ten percent of your total calories saturated fat” rule, but keep in mind this is over a period of time.

Let’s assume you eat 2,500 calories a day.

Ten percent of 2500 calories = 250 calories.

Divide 250 calories by 9 (the amount of calories per gram of fat) and you get 27.7.

So, you should get no more than 28 grams of saturated fat a day.

Does this mean that downing 40 grams at a birthday dinner is going to send you into coronary hell? Not at all.

What matters, as I always like to mention, are general patterns.

If you generally stay within that 10 percent figure, your risk is lowered.

If, however, the norm is 30 percent (in this case, 83 grams of saturated fat a day) for five, ten, or fifteen years, you will very likely run into problems.

In The News: Revising the Food Pyramid

The folks over at the Harvard School of Public Health -- led by Walter Willett -- don't think the traditional USDA food pyramid (officially known as MyPyramid) doles out the best advice.

So, they proactively designed their own version -- The Healthy Eating Pyramid.

You can see a nicely drawn PDF version by clicking on the link above.

I prefer this version over the USDA's, but have a few critiques.

Although I like the inclusion of "daily exercise and weight control" at the base, I would prefer that section be titled "daily exercise and portion control."

Additionally, the "healthy fats/oils" category should place more of an emphasis on fats higher in Omega-3 (i.e: olive oil, walnuts, flaxseed) and less on ones offering very high Omega-6 levels (ie: soy and corn).

As I have discussed in the past, an improper Omega 6:Omega 3 ratio has its share of health implications.

Lastly, I strongly disagree with the inclusion of potatoes in the "eat sparingly" pyramid tip (accompanied by red meat, refined grains, sugary snacks, and salt).

It is one thing to eat potatoes in their nutritionally void skinless, deep fried version.

However, a baked potato, eaten with its skin, is a great source of fiber, potassium, vitamin C, folate, and magnesium.

Clearly, current obesity and diabetes rates can not be blamed on the ingestion of healthily prepared potatoes.

Your thoughts?

The Cleanse That Makes No Sense

I have recently come across a number of people asking me about -- or telling me they were on -- the Master Cleanse/Lemonade Diet, so I figured, "why not blog about it?"

If you thought I was put off by proponents of food combining, you ain't seen nothing yet.

It all begins with The Master Cleanser, published in 1976 by Stanley Burroughs, which should appear in the dictionary next to the word "hogwash".

Make that unhealthy hogwash.

It simply consists of consuming nothing but an atrocious-sounding concoction of freshly squeezed lemon juice, maple syrup (oh, I’m sorry, Grade B maple syrup) and cayenne pepper six to twelve times a day for at least ten days.

That’s right, the real hardcore cleansers are on this for up to 40 days!

Oh, I forgot to mention that sometimes “laxative teas” are recommended, as is starting your morning off with a 32 ounce glass of lukewarm water with sea salt in it.

Yum! What a wonderful event to look forward as you drift off to Slumber Land each night.

Forget “Master Cleanse,” the real name should be “The Masochist Cleanse.”

Seriously, why anyone would willingly drink this blows my mind.

In any case, proponents claims that this is the only way for your body to "detox" by releasing toxins stored in fat cells.

The cleanse, they say, and particularly the cayenne pepper, "physically loosens" the impacted toxins in your colon that have been stuck to your intestinal walls for weeks, months, even years!

Gasp! Shock! Eyeroll.

Clearly, the proponents have never read about that wonderful machine known as the human body.

After all, the kidneys and liver are the main detoxifying organs.

The kidneys are responsible for the production of urine, which is basically the lump sum of all the waste and leftover junk from metabolic processes.

There is no need to do any further detoxing.

If anything, the best way to keep everything moving through your body is by consuming sufficient amounts of fiber and staying hydrated.

This is, in essence, a very low calorie (and very disgusting tasting) die that adds up to roughly 1,000 calories a day.

Proponents claim these three ingredients provide all the nutritional requirements.

Really? The three ingredients offer no protein, monounsaturated fats, Omega-3 fatty acids, Omega-6 fatty acids, fiber, folate, B6, or B12, approximately two percent of the daily value of vitamins A, E, and K, and a measly quarter of a day's worth of potassium, iron, and calcium.

The only nutrient obtained at or above the daily requirement is manganese.

Like with all other very low calorie diets, you can expect to gain the weight back when you begin ingesting solid food and consuming more than 1,000 calories.

File this one under "unhealthy liquid fasts that should be banished from mainstream culture."

In The News: Corn-utopia

The Wall Street Journal reports that the ever increasing prices of corn farming have led farmers to project this year's planting estimates at 86 million acres -- eight percent less than last year's figure.

"Corn prices have skyrocketed in recent years, helped by the burgeoning ethanol industry, which turns the crop into fuel, and rising world-wide demand for food. The higher prices have hurt poultry, beef and pork companies, who use corn to feed their animals."

Here's a thought -- how about feeding these animals the foods they are meant to eat?

In the case of cows, not only is a corn diet detrimental to their digestive systems, it also results in meat higher in saturated fat and omega-6 fatty acids than that of cows subsisting exclusively on a grass diet.

The repercussions also affect our wallets.

"Corn already is trading near its record-high price of $5.70 a bushel, more than double the price of two years ago."

Meat and dairy prices will continue to rise.

Additionally, since a large portion of this country's food supply is based around corn oil and corn-based syrups, expect bread and convenience snacks to also take a hit.

For more information on this very complex topic, I direct you to a highly informative 2002 interview with corn guru Michael Pollan.

Say What?: Too Much of a Good Thing

As regular readers of this column know, I am a big fan of fruit and nut bars like Clif Nectar, Lara, and Pure (basically, any bar that has five or less ingredients -- usually dates, nuts, seeds, and, in some instances, cocoa powder).

Not only are these bars delicious on-the-go snacks, they also provide healthy fats, fiber, potassium, and are free of added sugar, trans fats, and sodium.

They make conventional "soy and rice crisp and 25 synthetic vitamins and minerals" snack bars taste like artificially sweetened cardboard.

One aspect I am perplexed by, though, is the nutrition components some of these bars choose to feature on their packaging.

Lara bars, for example, boast about the amount of Omega-6 essential fatty acids they contain.

Don't get me wrong; omega-6 essential fatty acids are certainly needed in the diet (remember, 'essential' means that our body is unable to produce it, so we must get it from external means).

The issue, however, is that the standard US diet is extremely high in them -- and too low in Omega-3 fatty acids.

And it just so happens that excessive intakes of Omega-6 (which is pro-inflammatory) prevent the other essential fatty acid, Omega-3, from doing its anti-inflammatory work.

This is why, when people get all excited about Omega-3's and simply start eating more flaxseed meal or salmon, they don't realize that this dietary change needs to simultaneously occur with a lower intake of Omega-6 for it to have beneficial effects.

Here's an eye-popping statistic:

It is estimated that up until the 1950s, our Omega6 - Omega 3 ratio fell in the desired 2:1 ratio.

These days? We're looking at an absurd 20:1 ratio! This is bad news not only for heart health, but also in regards to risks of certain cancers.

Omega-6 fatty acids are found in plants, nuts, and seeds (and their respective oils). No one in this country is deficient in Omega-6 fatty acids.

As the movie King Corn pointed out, the United States' high omega-6 intake is also related to the fact that the large majority of cows serving as sources of dairy and beef are fed corn, rather than grass.

Grass-fed beef contains a respectable amount of Omega-3 fatty acids.

Corn-fed beef? Not only is it high in Omega-6 and absent of Omega-3; it is also higher in saturated fat!

I e-mailed the folks over at Lara Bar several months ago, pointing out how odd it was to advertise the Omega-6 grams in their bars as a health benefit. If you feel the same way, drop them a line!

Let me again remind you that Omega-6 fats in and of themselves are not unhealthy. It is the Omega 6 : Omega 3 ratio that is problematic.

(Really) South of the Border

My week in Buenos Aires revealed several interesting tidbits on how nutrition and dieting are perceived in Argentina.

I’ll begin with similarities I observed between the land of tango and the nation of apple pie.

The absence of trans fats in a given food product is heavily advertised on packaging.

Supersizing is not limited to the United States. Alfajores – a popular Argentine treat consisting of dulce de leche filling between two chocolate-coated cookies – have recently started to become available in triple-sizes! This extra cookie – and additional layer of dulce de leche – increases the caloric content by 75 percent.

Vegetarian items are becoming more mainstream at supermarkets. From soy burgers to soy milanesas (a traditional food, basically breaded beef or chicken cutlets), going meat-free in the world’s beef capital is becoming a little easier. Soymilk is unheard of for all intents and purposes, though, as are seitan and tempeh.

Fiber consumption is well below recommendations. Very few restaurants offer high-fiber vegetables as side dishes, beans and legumes are not staples, oatmeal is not a popular breakfast item, and whole grains are not consumed as often as they should be.

Now, the differences.

The gluten-free market is considerably larger in Argentina. Many supermarkets boast “gluten-free” sections or aisles, and popular gelaterias indicate which flavors are celiac-friendly.

Protein is not the star nutrient it is in the United States. Unlike in the United States, you do not see any foods advertised as "high in protein" or "x grams of protein per serving!" Protein shakes and supplements are not popular.

Nuts, seeds, and legumes are not heavily consumed. Not only are they expensive for the average Argentine, they are also not culturally significant.

Despite being one of the world’s leading blueberry exporters, Argentines do not traditionally snack on this wonderful fruit.

When it comes to fighting the common cold, zinc lozenges are not advertised (or even sold, really).

For some odd reason, Omega-9 fatty acids are heavily advertised on foods containing them. I find this strange because Omega 9 is not essential (since our bodies are able to produce it).

It is Omega 3 and 6 that we must obtain from the diet (although, as I have explained in the past, our Omega 3 to 6 ratio is scarily disproportionate).

I'll expand on some of these points over the next week. Also, look for a "Shame on You" post on Argentina's latest hotshot weight-loss doctor soon.

King Corn: Cows + Corn = Moooochos Problemas

One of King Corn's focus is the consequences of utilizing a large portion of the country's corn surplus to feed livestock.

Fifty years ago, cows in the United States, like others around the world, subsisted on a simple, natural diet of grass and hay.

In the early 1970's, though, when farmers were instructed to produce as much food as possible -- resulting in a tremendous surplus of corn -- cows' diets radically changed.

Gone was grass, in was corn (often mixed in with grains also foreign to cows' diets until that time).

Livestock breeders couldn't be happier about this change. On a corn diet, cows fatten up a lot quicker, especially when cruelly crowded in feedlots, literally unable to walk. In other words? More cow to sell in less time.

From a cow's standpoint, however, the glass isn't so full.

Cow's digestive systems are unable to handle corn and grains. Consequently, after a year of said diet (after 12 months, most are then sent to slaughterhouses), many cows get sick.

A sick cow, though, is useless to a breeder. So, as "insurance", antibiotics are mixed into their food supply. It is believed that antibiotic residue in the food we eat is partly responsible for developing antibiotic resistance in our own bodies!

Even with this precaution, many cows become sick to the point where their blood pH drops, often resulting in a life-threatening condition known as acidosis.

In fact, corn is so harmful to cows that if they were to eat it continuously for 18 months, their systems would go into overload, resulting in death.

According to King Corn, everyone who has eaten conventional beef in the United States over the past thirty years has eaten purely corn-fed meat.

This is especially troubling considering that the fat ratio in the United States' diet is completely imbalanced.

Ideally, we want our Omega 6 (an essential fatty acid found in vegetable oils, nuts, seeds, and plants) and Omega 3 (another essential fatty acid, found in walnuts, flax, salmon, tuna) ratio to be approximately 4 to 1. Current estimates place ratios anywhere from 15:1 to 20:1!

What's wrong with that? These disproportionate numbers greatly increase our risk of developing inflammatory diseases, including Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and degenerative joint disease.

As if that weren't bad enough, beef from corn-fed cows contains as much as five times more unhealthy saturated fat than that of grass-fed cattle!

You can now see why having our food supply so saturated with corn -- which provides Omega 6 fatty acids -- is a problem.

Consider a fast-food meal of a hamburger, fries, and soda.

You are getting corn in your hamburger, both in the corn-fed beef and the bun (which contains high-fructose corn syrup).

The fries? Very likely fried in corn oil (it's the cheapest, and you know fast foot outlets are all about cutting costs and maximizing profit!)

The soda? If it's not diet, you're getting your share of high-fructose corn syrup as well.

Next time you're at the supermarket, read the ingredient lists of the foods you place in your cart, keeping track of how many items contain high-fructose corn syrup, corn starch, corn oil, corn gluten, hydrolyzed corn, etc.

I have a feeling you'll be surprised.

Numbers Game: Answer

A 2004 New York Times investigation (led by renowned food writer Marian Burros) of eight high-end New York City food specialty stores revealed that six of them were labeling farm-raised salmon as "wild".

This is a very troubling statistic, particularly because there are important reasons for choosing wild -- rather than farmed -- salmon whenever possible.

Salmon is touted as one of the best sources of Omega-3 fatty acids because it contains top quality ones known as EPA and DHA in high amounts.

Sea creatures aren’t just naturally born with lots of Omega-3 fatty acids.

Instead, they eat sea plants that produce this fat. Once consumed, fish store it in their fat tissue (which, PS, is why you do not get Omega 3's from a salmon skin sushi roll).

In the case of larger fish, they achieve this by eating smaller species that eat sea plants.

Here is the problem. There are different types of salmon.

On the one hand, you have the wild kind, caught in the ocean, where these salmon produce Omega 3’s in their bodies by eating the plant life under the sea.

You also have farmed salmon, wherein hundreds of these fish are crowded into aquatic feedlots.

Guess what? They aren’t being given sea plants to eat. Rather, they are fed grain (to fatten them up) and antibiotics (they are in such close quarters that they are very likely to get sick, so farmers throw antibiotics in the water as ‘insurance’).

Hence, the amount of Omega-3's they offer is lower than that of wild salmon's.

Additionally, the perfect ratio of Omega 3 to Omega 6's (another fat our body can not produce, and thus we need to get from the diet) found in wild salmon is unbalanced in the farmed counterparts.

Although Omega 6 fats are necessary, the United States diet is extremely high in them, and too low in Omega 3's. The ideal ratio should be 1:3 (Omega 3:Omega 6); we're currently at a 1:20 - 1:25 ratio!

It gets worse, I’m afraid. Wild salmon gets its beautiful pink hue from its diet. Farmed salmon? From pellets!

There is actually a patented chart called a “salmo fan” (pictured up top), which displays several shades of pink. The salmon farmer chooses the specific shade he wants his fish to have, drops some pellets into the water and, voila, wish becomes reality!

Essentially, farmed salmon are fed dye.

Don’t get me wrong – salmon is still a great source of protein, potassium, phosphorus, selenium, and vitamin B12 whether it’s farmed or not.

However, when it comes to the impressive Omega 3 profile of salmon (and other seafood), you can forget about it if your dinner is coming from a feedlot and not the ocean itself.