Sometimes I write posts for you guys – inspirational (I hope) recipes, nutrition facts, food vs health, etc, and sometimes I write them for myself. This one is for me out of pure interest, but hopefully it will be informative and appealing to you as well.
If I could go back in time, I would do everything the same as I’ve done (because there’s no point in wishing you could change the past), except for one thing – I would have studied nutrition. My 20 year old self would probably laugh at me. In all honesty, my great passions at 20 were my fairly newly discovered love of binge drinking, rave fashion (short on material, long on skin) and my sexy new boyfriend who was smooth AF (shout to my now husband who still, on occasion, can pull the moves out the bag). My idea of nutrition back then was an Engen pie for lunch (cheap, tasty and gone in 60 seconds), 2 minute noodles for dinner and Hunters Gold. I suppose at least I’d moved on from Hooch and Peach Schnapps.
Nutrition wasn’t something I understood or gave any thought to. After all, when you’re young and invincible, why should you worry about what you eat? I feel lucky to have discovered a new passion later in life, and even if it’s something I never formally study, I am grateful to live in an age where I’m able to informally teach myself.
Diet trends are so much a part of our existence today. It seems like every day produces a new headline about what we should or shouldn’t be eating and how good/bad *insert diet here* is for us. My intent with this post is not to tell any of you what you should be doing, but rather to break down what the experts are telling us and the advantages and disadvantages of each. You see – very much a post for me, because I find this stuff fascinating. Here are a few of the most talked about diets today – there are so many more, I might do a part 2 in future.
Note: all my info is taken from Nutritionfacts.org. It was founded by Michael Greger, author of food book du jour, How Not To Die, and is the only non-commercial (ie free), science-based public service website that aims to provide people with the latest in nutrition research to help us make better choices regarding our diet and lifestyle and therefore our health. I have his book and will write about what I learn in future posts – I’m just waiting to capture it back from stealthy interception by Mark.
Another note: I’m approaching the Would You section hypothetically and without taking into account the morality of the diet, because obviously as a vegan most of these aren’t on my table.
Keto Diet
What is it: keto is short for ketogenic diet, which causes the body to produce small fuel molecules called ketones from fat. Ketones act as an alternative source of fuel when glucose is in short supply. The body automatically chooses carbohydrates to break down into glucose as its preferred source of energy. Ergo (I live to use this word), to achieve ketosis ie the state where the liver produces ketones, you must remove glucose as an energy source and supply the liver with fats to produce energy.
Summarise it in one sentence: bacon, eggs, meat, cheese – gooooood; potatoes, bread, grains, beer – bad.
Cheerleaders say: it’s great for weight loss as your appetite is controlled due to feeling satiated all the time. Ketoers report that the steady supply of energy from fat, which contrasts with the blood sugar spikes and dips on a high carb diet, keeps them alert and focused and they don’t feel the post-carb slump.
Doom and gloomers say: as levels of fat in the body rise, the ability to clear sugar from the blood drops. Increased levels of fat in the cells can therefore play a part in the development of insulin resistance, which can increase the risk of type 2 diabetes.
Would you? No. As a vegan, keto would be impossible because there’s simply not enough saturated fat in plants to sustain you. If I wasn’t vegan, in all honesty I would probably still not do this. I have always been and still remain highly suspicious of any diet that consists primarily of animal products – more on that in upcoming posts.
Mediterranean Diet
What is it: followed by people in Mediterranean countries like Spain, Greece and Italy, this diet includes lots of vegetables, olive oil, seafood, herbs, potatoes, nuts, legumes and fruit while limiting or completely eliminating poultry, red meat, dairy, eggs and processed or refined foods.
Summarise it in one sentence: it is consistently rated as one of the healthiest diets around, and includes physical activity and sharing meals with family and friends as part of the package. Cheers!
Cheerleaders say: people on the true Mediterranean diet of old showed a very low risk for all of today’s modern disease killers including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and strokes, while increasing overall longevity. This diet is associated with excellent long term health (in scientific terms, optimum cell function and processes).
Doom and gloomers say: the traditional diet has become corrupted over the years so that people looking to emulate the Greek or Italians of today will not get the benefits of the true diet. In other words, pizza, pasta and white bread is not what you’re aiming for. Otherwise there is very little criticism.
Would you? Definitely. I mean, bread (wholegrain), olives, fish and veggies…I could easily live on this.
DASH Diet
What is it: DASH is an acronym for Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension. It was developed to help people lower their blood pressure without medication, as high blood pressure is one of the top three killers in humans today. The idea is that eating foods rich in nutrients that are known to lower blood pressure, such as calcium, potassium and magnesium, while reducing foods high in sodium, achieves the goal naturally and affordably.
Summarise it in one sentence: lots of vegetables, fruits and low-fat dairy foods, moderate amounts of whole grains, fish, poultry, legumes and nuts and next to no saturated fats and cholesterol.
Cheerleaders say: well this one is obvious – if followed correctly, it does what it says on the tin, ie reduces high blood pressure.
Doom and gloomers say: There’s not much to criticise here, as studies have shown this one works for what it intends to achieve. It does not, however, make you lose weight, in case that’s what you’re going for.
Would you? Let’s talk if I ever have high blood pressure.
Flexitarian Diet
What is it: this is my favourite diet name because really it means whatever you want it to mean. It’s the get out of jail free card for vegans who eat meat once a month. It’s the pescetarian who is aiming for veggie but can’t quite get there. It’s the guest at your dinner party who talks about her wholefood recipes but grabs McDonalds on pay days. Basically, it’s a diet that doesn’t adhere to strict rules, but instead encourages a mostly plant based eating plan with a side of flexibility for those days when tofu just isn’t enough. In short, it’s the gateway diet to improving our overall health while consciously making ethically-driven choices that also decrease our carbon footprint. You can probably tell I like this one.
Summarise it in one sentence: you do you, man, go with the flow – it’s all love, brah.
Cheerleaders say: you get to do all the good things like make environmentally conscious changes and improve your long term health prospects without commitment. It’s like a friend with ultimate benefits.
Doom and gloomers say: it’s a cop out, you eat steak three times a week. They’re probably right.
Would you? I did. This was my exact path to becoming vegan…or if we’re keeping it totally real, this is technically still a reflection of where I am. As I’ve said in previous posts, I am 90% vegan and there are a couple of instances where I cheat (salmon sushi being the main culprit). So yes, I would, and I do.
]]>
I love it when my friends give me health topics to research. The reason I started this blog is because I want to know these things. I want to combine my passion for health with an expansive knowledge of what it really means to be healthy, while staying up to date with the ever-changing trends and studies that keep emerging. The internet can be a confusing place full of conflicting information. Everyone’s an armchair doctor or a keyboard activist these days, and it’s exhausting.
Have you ever sat at a dinner party and a subject comes up, and one of your friends starts talking like they’re the absolute authority on this issue, and you’re looking at them going, yeah I don’t really know whether to believe you? It’s not that you don’t trust your friend. You’re just not sure how well they researched their sources before they started pontificating. Everybody knows everything about everything in this digital age. Except that most people really don’t know anything – they’re simply regurgitating what other people ‘know’.
Ok great, so now that we’ve established we can’t trust anything anyone says, let’s dive into fresh vs frozen food! This topic was raised by my friend Dino while we were chatting the other day and immediately I knew it needed to be a blog.
Here are some of the questions we’re going to delve into.
There’s a general belief that buying frozen food is the cheap way out and therefore the produce is not as good or healthy. I’ve never believed this, having read somewhere many moons ago that freezing actually preserves the nutrient content. A quick search confirms that for the most part, this is true. Foods that are selected to be frozen are harvested at their peak ripeness and processed immediately, meaning there’s no deterioration – the nutrients are literally frozen in time until you consume them.
The main variable here is that nutrients don’t all behave in the same way. The first step in the freezing process involves blanching veggies in hot water or steam to kill bacteria. Some water soluble nutrients like vitamins B & C will break down or leach out at this point, so it makes a case for choosing fresh over frozen for these nutrients. The veg is flash-frozen after blanching, locking in all remaining nutrients. Most fruits are not blanched before freezing, so the nutrient content remains relatively unaffected.
Fresh fruit and veg, on the other hand, are often picked before they’re fully ripe to give them time to be transported to their destinations without spoiling. This means they don’t always have time to develop their full range of nutrients, as the ripening process plays an important role here. Long journeys with exposure to heat and light can also break down some of their nutritional content.
The multiple studies I read advocate a mix of both fresh and frozen food in your diet. Fresh fruit and veg will be especially healthy if it hits your table very soon after harvesting, making an excellent case for visiting your local farmer’s market, only buying local products in your supermarket or growing your own. The rule of thumb is if a food is in season, buy it fresh and ripe and eat it soon after purchasing. If it’s off-season, buy frozen and eat within 4-6 months.
So what are the cons? Besides the breakdown of some nutrients and antioxidants in the blanching process, many frozen foods are loaded with sugar or sodium, fats or preservatives to influence their colour or texture. To be fair, this is usually only when the food has sauces or spices added to it – so plain fruit and veg should be free of these. It goes without saying that you need to check the ingredients on the packaging before you buy. Find a brand that doesn’t add these extras and stick to it.
I’ve chosen to talk about fruit and veg in this post, but ready meals are of course the big concern here – the nutrient content is likely to be highly influenced by the additives required to maintain these foods. If you see a list of unidentifiable, unpronounceable items in the ingredients, rather choose fresh.
The other big influencing factor in the nutrient content of frozen food is how you heat it. I’ve always avoided microwaves where possible (which, to be honest, is often not very possible at all). I don’t believe they have cancer-causing rays or whatever other old wives’ tale is doing the rounds, but I’ve always thought that, much like the freezing process influences nutrients, heating something up to high temperatures very quickly must do the same. This is a vague conviction I have though, certainly not based on any fact I can remember reading, so I was interested to find out whether I was right.
I knew that you’re not supposed to boil frozen veg. A long cooking time combined with lots of water is the fastest way to destroy nutrients, making boiling the worst way to cook frozen foods. I mentioned the breakdown of unstable water soluble vitamins earlier – it’s obvious that an extended time in boiling water is going to leach these out of the food as well. Some nutrients, like vitamin C, are largely destroyed by the heating process, regardless of how you do it. Steaming is an accepted way of cooking veg quickly with minimal nutrient loss as it doesn’t come into direct contact with the water. Roasting veg is also good, as the dry cooking method helps to retain nutrients.
But what about microwaves? What I found is interesting. As we’ve seen, the number one enemy of nutrient loss in cooking is water. Microwaves actually use less heat than some other cooking methods and they involve shorter cooking times. The general consensus among studies done is that as long as you use a very minimal amount of water and don’t overcook your vegetables, microwaving actually preserves a high degree of nutrients. It’s especially good for retaining antioxidants, although steaming has been shown to better retain minerals and vitamins. For info, I read up on some of the latest published studies to get this data. If you go much earlier than 2015, microwave studies are full of doom and gloom and we should all be dead.
As with literally anything I’ve ever researched for this blog, the key is always: everything in moderation and find your balance. Don’t eat all frozen veg or heat everything up in the microwave – buy a variety of products and cook them in different ways, as much for different textures and flavours and your own sanity as for your health. Right, I’m off to heat up my vegan bean mastermix…in the microwave.
]]>Yesterday we put sugar on trial and found it guilty as hell. But a world with sweet things is a sad world indeed, and I happen to like happiness and cupcakes. So, what are the alternatives?
It’s important to note that while there are better alternatives to sugar, using them doesn’t mean that your baking is now sugar free. Refined sugar free, yes, if you’re not using cane sugar. But all forms of natural sugar still have an effect on blood sugar levels and lead to the release of insulin.
You’ll recognise insulin as the diabetic’s Achilles heel. It’s the hormone that instructs the body to move glucose (sugar) from the bloodstream into the cells where it is either used for energy or converted into fat for storage. In diabetics, the body either doesn’t produce enough insulin for this process or doesn’t respond adequately to the insulin produced. Without treatment, this causes blood sugar imbalances which can be fatal. In non-diabetics, excess consumption of sugar causes similar blood sugar imbalances, however as they are corrected with insulin, they aren’t life threatening. However, they do have long term effects on your health, as discussed in this post.
Regardless of how natural or nutritious a sugar is, it still affects your blood sugar levels. It therefore goes without saying that all sugar alternatives should be used in moderation – don’t think you can eat 5 cookies just because they’re made with maple syrup.
The Good Alternatives
Coconut Nectar / Sugar
What is it? The crystalised nectar collected from the flower of the coconut palm in either liquid or crystal form.
Why’s it good? It’s a good source of nutrients like vitamin C, B2, B3, iron and magnesium. It’s also low GI (30-35) – foods that are low on the glycemic index are less disruptive to blood sugar levels. By comparison, white table sugar has a GI of 60 and no added nutritional benefits.
What’s the catch? It’s fairly new to SA and is very expensive. 250ml will cost you R120 – that’s not going to go very far in your cupcake recipes.
Fruit purees
What is it? Homemade mashed up fruit such as soaked dates blended to a paste, apple sauce made from stewed apples (no added sugar!) or smashed ripe bananas.
Why’s it good? You get the flavour of the fruit along with the vitamins, minerals and fibre that it contains.
What’s the catch: It can be hard to bake with fruit purees because they affect the quantities of wet to dry ingredients. Practice makes perfect, but prepare for a few batches of wet, sludgy muffins.
Maple Syrup
What is it? The concentrated sap of the Canadian maple tree.
Why’s it good? It’s lower in calories and fructose content than honey and has a GI rating of 54. It has some nutritional value in iron, zinc, manganese and potassium, however, it is lower in vitamins than honey.
What’s the catch: In SA it is also fairly expensive – Woolies sells 250ml organic maple syrup for just under R100. Also watch out for ‘Maple flavoured syrup’ – this is not real maple syrup and has an extremely high glucose content.
Honey
What is it: Made by bees out of nectar gathered from flowers.
Why’s it good? Honey contains vitamins B6 and C and has a GI of between 40 and 55. It is roughly 50% fructose (fruit sugar) – a 50:50 ratio of fructose to glucose is easier for the body to metabolise than a product with higher fructose content (ie pure fruit). Raw honey ie not pasteurised has additional antibacterial and antifungal benefits.
What’s the catch? Heating honey at high temperatures destroys all its goodness. Most mass produced honey is made this way during pasteurisation. Always buy raw for maximum nutritional benefits. Never microwave your honey – rather place the jar in warm water and wait until its liquid enough to use. Honey is not recommended for babies under a year.
Stevia
What is it: A protein found naturally in the stevia plant grown in Peru, which stimulates the sweet receptors on the tongue. The purest form is the green powder made from the leaf of the plant.
Why’s it good? It’s extremely low calorie and very sweet, so a small amount goes a long way.
What’s the catch? There is an aftertaste to stevia that some people find very metallic, myself included. I won’t bake with it. Be careful of the more processed options – there are many stevia variations with added processed sweeteners to balance the taste.
The Bad Alternatives
Xylitol
What is it? A sugar alcohol derived from the fibre of various plants like oats, mushrooms, corn and raspberries.
Why do people use it? It’s low GI and prevents the growth of oral bacteria. For this reason, it is often used in chewing gum.
Why won’t you touch it? While it’s true that xylitol is a naturally occurring substance, mass manufactured xylitol is produced by the process of sugar hydrogenation, which involves chemical reactions using a powdered nickel-aluminum alloy. Basically, there is heavy metal residue on the final product. Studies on hydrogenated sugars are still out, but given what we know about hydrogenated fats, do you really want to take the chance?
Brown Rice Syrup
What is it? A high glucose syrup derived from fermented cooked rice.
Why do people use it? It sounds healthy.
Why won’t you touch it? Brown Rice Syrup looks and sounds natural but it is actually highly processed and has a GI of 98 – that’s basically the same as white sugar. It also contains little in terms of nutritional value.
Agave Syrup
What is it: the pulp of the Agave cactus, a plant which grows in Latin America.
Why do people use it? The syrup was originally used by Native Americans, but what they extracted bears little resemblance to the Agave syrup we find in supermarkets today. It’s a highly processed syrup with a fructose content of 70-97%. Fructose doesn’t cause a glucose/insulin spike like glucose does, and so Agave was originally marketed as a low GI sweetener. However, we know now that fructose goes directly to the liver for processing and is actually worse for us than glucose.* Agave is similar in composition to High Fructose Corn Syrup, the processed sugar which is responsible for the outbreak of obesity in the Western world.
*But wait, doesn’t fruit contain fructose? Oh shit, now what?
Yes it does, but it contains glucose as well – only a few fruits contain more fructose than glucose, like apples and pears. You’d have to eat around 25% of your daily calories in fruit for the fructose to have a real impact. So add your banana and apple to your morning smoothie and don’t stress.
My choice
I use raw honey. I’m an advocate of wholefoods, so wherever possible I will always choose a natural product. If coconut nectar was more affordable I’d use it, and while stevia is tempting, I don’t like the aftertaste in my baked goods. Due to its very recent rise in popularity, there’s also uncertainty around the processing of some product. When in doubt, leave it out!
]]>
In recent years, sugar has become the O.J Simpson of foods. Once an innocent delight, loved for the smiles it brought to kids’ faces, it now languishes on dietary death row with armchair prosecutors around the world decrying its great evils.
The social media jury has a point.
After years of ignorant bliss, we are finally noticing the effects of the sheer volume of sugar that we’ve been consuming – and they’re not good. Up until a few hundred years ago, sugary foods were a luxury and not as widely accessible, given the lack of refrigeration and preserving techniques. Simpler farming methods meant fruit seasons were shorter, so people didn’t consume large quantities of natural fruit sugars either.
Today sugar is in just about every damn thing. From spices to sauces, from beer to bread, from steak pies to sausages – yes, check the ingredients in certain brands – it sneaks in and sticks to your hips when you least expect it.
It is estimated that by the time a child is 8 years old, they will have consumed as much sugar as an adult did in their entire lifetime 100 years ago.
The mass hysteria – the reason babies are being denied Marie Biscuits for teething and 5 year olds are consuming carrots and hummus at birthday parties – is because recent studies have shown us what happens when we eat uninhibited quantities of sugar.
According to one, there are 30% more obese people in the world today than undernourished people. That’s 30% more fat Americans than starving Africans, to use a Western world cliché. In 2011, there were 366 million diabetics in the world — more than double the number in 1980, and 5 per cent of the total population at the time.
Remember when you didn’t know anyone with diabetes? It wasn’t that long ago that it was a different disease, one that was only linked to genetics rather than lifestyle. Add to those high blood pressure, chronic fatigue, depression and addictive overeating disorders, and you have a well-rounded view of sugar’s evil clutches.
Previously many of these conditions were thought to be linked to saturated fats. We’ve debunked that myth – you can read my thoughts on dietary fats here – but what you may not know is that when the food industry cut back on fat content, they replaced it with something else. Take the fats out of food and you end up munching on cardboard, so what’s a profit-seeking conglomerate to do?
They replaced fats with carbohydrates. High fructose corn syrup and sucrose, to be precise. 40 years ago, food manufacturers everywhere took away fats and replaced them with sugar.
And here we are in 2016, watching reality shows like the Biggest Loser and Huge, a documentary series about kids at fat camp.
Sugar presents a serious problem to our health and finally we ‘re taking notice. But given the invisible presence of sugar in modern food, how can we combat our excessive consumption?
In the next post, I’ll talk about alternatives to sugar and explore the pros and cons of so-called natural sweeteners.
]]>
As I’m sure you know by now, I don’t eat gluten – or very little of it anyway (I say, sitting at my desk with a large piece of gluteny, dairy-filled chocolate mousse cake in front of me….Cake Fridays are cheat days!). Earlier this week I wrote a post about the theories behind gluten intolerance, which you can see here over at Full Circle Wellness. Today I thought I’d go one step further and discuss fats….and Tim Noakes. Oh yes, I’m going there.
When it comes to Tim Noakes, there are two distinct schools of people – those who follow his meal plans in a slightly cult-like daze, swearing by every word that comes out of his mouth (no matter that his instructions seem to change on a weekly basis), and those who snuffle and snort with such derision that you’d be forgiven for thinking a herd of particularly nasal piglets had escaped the farm.
I fall somewhere in between. I have zero time for Tim Noakes himself – I think he’s a dangerous man with a lot of commercial backing but not enough scientific evidence to be swaying the masses the way he does.
But I don’t dismiss his philosophy as a whole, because my dad is a Type 1, adult onset diabetic and he has been following a Tim Noakes-style diet for years. Incidentally, he was not introduced to his diet by the great pretender – there’s another influential dietician in the diabetic world who punted a very low carb diet for insulin resistants while Noakes was still guzzling pasta before marathons. In contrast to Noakes’ cowboy reasoning, Richard Bernstein’s experience is based on his having been a Type 1 diabetic for 69 years. I’m not diabetic so I won’t judge your choices if you are, but to me it seems sensible to take advice from the guy who actually went through it himself over that of the controversial upstart. If it was me, I would just do some extra reading before laying my health wholeheartedly at Noakes’ door, but each to their own.
But I digress – the topic of Tim Noakes, like politics and religion, can turn the most mild-mannered person into a frothing-at-the-mouth zealot!
I want to talk about animal fats versus plant fats. Tim Noakes says you can have as much fat as you like and it’s all good – bacon, eggs, cream, cheese, all fried in oil and topped with avocado – hello breakfast! I simply don’t agree.
I feel the need to insert my usual disclaimer here: I am not a scientist or a nutritionist. I am merely someone who has researched health and nutrition extensively for my own interests and my personal health journey. I am not always right, but you will see I never jump blindly onto a bandwagon either. And I pride myself on presenting both sides of the story.
I eat plenty of coconut and olive oil, chickpeas and hummus, lots of nuts. I try to eat avo as well but I just can’t get into it (does anyone else find it vaguely reminiscent of Shrek’s toe jam?). I also eat red meat and cheese, but in far smaller quantities than my plant fats.
So, why do I think plant fats are better than animal fats? The subject of fats and their effects on our health is incredibly complicated. In the course of my research for this post, I had to start over many times because in every article I read, I found something new.
The first thing to note is that dietary fats have never been either all good or all bad, and the recent studies on saturated fats tell us this same thing. None of the macronutrient classes (fats, proteins and carbohydrates) can be classified in such black and white terms. When it comes to food compounds, the colour palette is more than 50 shades of grey.
In the interests of simplifying the issue, I am going to answer my own question the way I would if we were sitting opposite each other at a dinner party, because if I started droning on in the manner of some of the articles I’ve just read, you will never read my blog again.
Point to note: there are two types of fats: sterols and fatty acids. Fatty acids can be broken down further into groups including saturated, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats.
I choose plant fats because:
1. The sterols in animal fats contain cholesterol, while the sterols in plant fats do not.
Our bodies do need certain amounts of ‘good’ cholesterol (HDL), but if you eat moderate amounts of animal fats you will get enough.
2. Dairy, meat and processed foods today are higher today in saturated fats than ever before due to farming techniques and processing. While certain saturated fats have been exonerated as being harmful to us, this study shows that a diet rich in monounsaturated fats is still preferable to one high in saturated fats. Monounsaturated fats are found in red meat, whole milk products, nuts and high fat fruits such as olives and avocados.
But I just mentioned that dairy and meat today are higher in saturated fats than ever before. So by a simple comparison, plant fats overall seem to have less harmful potential than animal fats.
Essentially what I’m saying is that it’s better to be safe than sorry. We don’t yet know exactly what would happen to someone who ate only saturated animal fats for most of their adult life, but I’m sure the studies are well under way. Personally, I don’t want to be a guinea pig in a medical research paper. If, after a rational analysis, plant fats sound like the safer option, you can bet that’s the basket where I’m putting all my eggs.
]]>In the words of Jon Snow, winter is coming….or it’s already here, depending on your capacity for cold. After 8 years in London I would expect my tolerance to be a little higher than your average Capetonian (the coldest people in the world, don’t you know?), but in the year and a half that I’ve been back my resilience has gone from tank tops in 15 degrees to fleece lined, Antarctic-ready parkas in temperatures of 10.
The worst part about winter is the constant desire to eat comfort food. Raw vegans drool enviously over thick, meaty stews; Bantingers sigh in defeat and admit that life without warm gooey puddings is probably not worth the pain. It takes real commitment to stick with your healthy lifestyle when the temperature drops.
Since some of my most enjoyable times in the kitchen are spent creating healthy versions of guilty pleasures, I look at winter eating as a challenge. My most essential ingredient therefore has to be cacao, or raw chocolate in in its purest form. Think chocolate brownies, melty chocolate pudding, chocolate peanut butter cups…basically comfort food at its finest must contain chocolate or it can leg it, in my humble opinion.
But what’s the difference between cocoa and cacao, besides one being your bad imitation of a birdcall and a suspected spelling mistake?
The cacao bean is the source of both cacao and cocoa powders, and refers to the raw form of chocolate. The bean contains approximately 50% fat (cocoa butter), 35% carbs and 15% protein. It also contains a bucket load of minerals including iron, magnesium, potassium, zinc and manganese. Finally, it is has high quantities of something called flavonoids, which are rich in antioxidants.
This is chocolate in its purest, nutritionally dense form.
Raw cacao is made by cold pressing unroasted cocoa beans, a process which removes most of the fat (cocoa butter) but retains the enzyme content. Cocoa powder, used in baking and the manufacturing of chocolate bars, is raw cacao that has been roasted at high temperatures. This roasting process destroys most of the enzymes and changing the structure of the bean, so it becomes nutritionally sparse. Many cocoa powders also contain additional additives such as sweeteners.
Here are your burning questions answered…
So is cacao fattening?
Yes it is – don’t be fooled by the props that its got. Just because something has healthy properties doesn’t mean you can eat it by the shovelful. As with all good fats, like avo, coconut oil and hummus for example, moderation is key.
If I’m baking with raw cacao I’m heating it in some way, so doesn’t this destroy the enzymes the same as in the roasting process?
Excellent question, well done for asking. Unfortunately there is no science about whether heating raw cacao destroys its antioxidant level, making it similar to its heated and processed cousin cocoa. BUT, I reckon if you start off with a product in its purest form, you stand the chance of benefitting more than if you start with an already heated and processed equivalent.
What about sugar?
Cacao contains next to no sugar but supermarket cocoa powder often has sugar or other sweeteners added, so if you are going to buy it, check the label.
Play devil’s advocate.
Ok if I must. As with any new food trend, cacao has its detractors. A self-described ‘health watchman’ called Paul Nison has multiple posts dedicated to the toxicity of cacao and how people have been led astray with regards to its health benefits. One nutritionist says this: “Chocolate addicts, like all addicts, are always looking for a way to justify the usage or consumption of their drug of choice. Just like alcoholics love to hear that a beer a day or a glass of wine has some health benefits, when we all really know better. No matter how you cut it, eating chocolate, or raw cacao, on a regular basis is not healthy.” In addition to minerals and flavoids, raw chocolate has many naturally occurring chemicals that opponents say can be harmful to us.
Ok, now I’m just confused.
I said it before and I’ll say it again – EVERYTHING IN MODERATION. If you use the health industry’s food trends as an excuse to eat as much of a particular food as you like, you’re doing it wrong and you will experience negative side effects. Research is good, but a balanced outlook and rational decision making process is even better.
Now go forth and enjoy your chocolate!
]]>Along with gluten and wholefoods, another word currently basking in its 15 minutes of fame is superfoods. Superfoods basically describes all foods thought to be nutritionally dense and therefore containing exceptional health benefits. I say thought to be, because the medical science jury is still out on this one.
As with any new trend in the food industry, there are conflicting opinions about whether superfoods really do what their supporters claim – I suspect because of the radicals picketing about how blueberries and cacao can heal cancer, and other masticating miracles. I’ll explore this in more depth in another post, but my take on it is that I do believe superfoods have amazing nutrient content and are awesome for your health, and you do look and feel healthier and more energetic when you consume them.
As to whether they can contribute to healing serious illnesses, that is something I plan to do more research on. My father – the eternal pessimist, bless him – taught me at a very young age not to believe everything I read. While I got my mother’s sometimes irrationally optimistic genes, I do tend to view things with an initially healthy dose of suspicion until I’ve done my own investigation – something that I credit for my generally balanced outlook on life, until an end of summer shoe sale or a bowl of slap chips with salt and vinegar appears on the horizon. Then balance – and good health – be damned!
Anyway, chia seeds! Why are they awesome? For such tiny little seeds, they certainly pack a powerful nutritional punch. Along with flaxseeds, they contain the highest natural plant source of omega 3 fatty acids. They are also very high in complete protein (ie containing all 8 amino acids) – approx. 4 grams in 2 tbsp of chia –and serve up a wallop of fibre. Add to that a high concentration of antioxidants, which – if you’ve been living under a rock – are good for fighting disease and staving off wrinkles, and an impressive list of vitamins and minerals including calcium, magnesium, potassium, manganese, zinc and several B vitamins. They also have virtually no carbs, making them a dieter’s dream.
Chia is native to South America. Legend has it that the Aztecs and Mayans used it to fuel their messengers for long distance running before sending them scampering off into the yonder mountains with news. Madder legend has it that one tablespoon of chia can sustain a man for an entire day, but being the regular meal lover that I am, I am not volunteering to check the validity of this statement.
The best way to eat chia seeds is by soaking them in water for an hour before using (or overnight if you want to add them to your morning smoothie). The seeds absorb up to 9 times their weight in water and form a gelatinous coating with a pudding like consistency. Soaked seeds are more easily digested by our bodies, meaning we can absorb the maximum amount of nutrients. A quick, tasty way to enjoy chia is to soak them in almond or oat milk for an hour, then add a teaspoon of cacaco powder and a tsp of honey. Quick and easy chocolate chia pudding – your body can thank you later!
]]>
I lived in London for 8 long, adventurous years. While I was there I started my health journey, and when I came back in October 2013 I was enthusiastically waving my gluten free, lactose free, minimal refined sugar banner. My family’s reaction – who the hell is gluten and why did you have to free yourself from him!?
An understandable question, given that humans have cheerfully been eating gluten for at least 10,000 years with minimal issues, and the gluten free craze that has recently taken over South Africa has spread at the speed of Cape wildfires in a very short space of time. This gluten free hysteria feels, to a reasonable person, very alarmist. Google scientists are claiming that gluten is a culinary villain that is poisoning the minds of our children, and people are throwing themselves off the grain ship like it’s the Titanic. Even Southpark dedicated an episode to going gluten free – a sure sign that it has become a cultural zeitgeist.
It all reeks of several decades ago when scientists told us that saturated fats would kill us by the thousands, and people the world over waved crucifixes in the faces of butter and cream. Or rewind to the mid-2000s when celebrities like Jennifer Aniston spoke out for the Atkins diet, and suddenly carbs were being burned at the stake.
What is happening with gluten today is another example of a bandwagon being firmly jumped on. But is there any truth to the wide eyed whispers that gluten is a real threat? What is gluten really, and is the mass hysteria justified or are we going to think back on this period with our tails between our legs?
Let’s examine the facts as know them. Gluten is a two part protein found in grains such as wheat, barley and rye. It is created when two peptides – gliadin and glutenin – come into contact during the kneading process and form a bond. This bond creates an elastic membrane, or stickiness, that gives baked goods their chewy texture. This is why amateur gluten free baking often resembles soggy concrete blocks – without the elasticity of gluten, it is difficult to achieve that desired lightness, as my own frequent flops can attest.
People who are diagnosed with celiac disease have an autoimmune response whenever they ingest gluten. This means the body recognises gluten as a threat and attacks itself in an attempt to eliminate it. This reaction destroys the brushlike surfaces of the small intestine and can cause extreme illness. Celiacs cannot have gluten of any kind, in any amount, ever.
But it’s people like me – people with gluten ‘sensitivity’, ‘intolerance’ or my personal favourite ‘anxiety’ – that have scientists’ panties in a twist. Doctors rarely diagnose it, and many believe it doesn’t exist. You are far more likely to be told that you suffer from IBS, as I was, than to have your gluten intolerance confirmed.
There are a number of theories for the recent spike in gluten related issues, however none of them result in clear, scientific answers, mostly due to the lack of time spent thus far on gluten studies.
1. The wheat we were eating 50 years ago is not the same as the wheat we eat today.
Scientists for this theory claim that the wheat we eat today is a product of genetic research which has made it faster growing as well as drought- and bug-resistant. The modified gluten protein is vastly different to the protein of yesteryear and is not as easily digested.
2. The volume of gluten in modern diets has increased.
Dietary patterns have changed dramatically in the past century, but human genes have not. The human body is not equipped to deal with the vast amounts of gluten found not only in bread and pasta but in sauces, gravies and virtually every kind of packaged food.
3. The addition of vital wheat gluten to wholewheat products.
Vital wheat gluten is a powdered, concentrated form of the gluten that is found naturally in bread. Additional amounts of this protein are added to wholewheat products to make them softer and increase their shelf life. As obsession with healthy eating spirals, more people are moving from refined to wholewheat products, and therefore consuming vastly increased amounts of vital wheat gluten.
These are just three of the most popular theories, but there are more.
So what does this mean if you describe yourself as gluten sensitive – are you a hysterical trend follower, or do you have a valid point?
In the absence of medical answers, I follow a simple rule when it comes to determining what foods I eat. When I’ve struggled with bad digestion, low energy levels, skin breakouts and lethargy, I have eliminated a food from my diet, and I then compare how I feel afterwards to how I felt when I was eating it.
For me, no wheat gluten, very minimal lactose and limited refined sugar is a proven path to energy, alertness, good digestion and stable weight. Maybe I’m a freak in medical terms, but even the most cynical of doctors wouldn’t tell me I should be eating those things when I am so clearly better off without them.
What’s your gluten experience?
]]>