ReportWire

Tag: Cooking Methods

  • How Healthy Are Baruka Nuts? | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    How do barukas, also known as baru almonds, compare with other nuts?

    There is a new nut on the market called baru almonds, branded as “barukas” or baru nuts. Technically, it isn’t a nut but a seed native to the Brazilian Savannah, known as the Cerrado, which is now among the most threatened ecosystems on the planet. Over the last 30 years, much of the Cerrado’s ecosystem has been destroyed by extensive cattle ranching and feed crop production to fatten said cattle. If it were profitable not to cut down the native trees and instead sell baru nuts, for example, that could be good for the ecosystem’s health. But what about our health?

    “Although baru nuts are popular and widely consumed, few studies report on their biological properties.” They do have a lot of polyphenol phytonutrients, presumably accounting for their high antioxidant activity. (About 90% of their phytonutrients are present in the peel.) Are they nutritious? Yes, but do they have any special health benefits—beyond treating chubby mice?

    Researchers found that individuals fed baru nuts showed lower cholesterol, supposedly indicating the nuts “have great potential for dietary use” in preventing and controlling cholesterol problems. But the individuals were rats, not humans, and the baru nuts were compared to lard. Pretty much everything lowers cholesterol compared to lard. Nevertheless, there haven’t been any reports about the effect of baru nut consumption on human health, until this: A randomized, controlled study of humans found that eating less than an ounce a day for six weeks led to a 9% drop in LDL cholesterol. Twenty grams would be about 15 nuts or a palmful.

    Like many other nut studies, even though the research subjects were told to add nuts to their regular diets, there was no weight gain, presumably because nuts are so filling that we inadvertently cut down on other foods throughout the day. How good is a 9.4% drop in LDL? It’s the kind of drop we can get from regular almonds, though macadamias and pistachios may work even better, but those were at much higher doses. It appears that 20 grams of baru nuts work as well as 73 grams of almonds. So, on a per-serving basis or a per-calorie basis, baru nuts really did seem to be special.

    There are lower-dose nut studies that show similar or even better results. In this one, for instance, people were given 25 grams of almonds for just four weeks and got about a 6% drop in their LDL cholesterol. In another study, after consuming just 10 grams of almonds a day, or just seven individual almonds a day, study participants got more like a 30% drop in LDL during the same time frame as the baru nuts. Three times better LDL at half the dose with regular almonds, as you can see below and at 2:47 in my video Are Baruka Nuts the Healthiest Nut?.

    The biggest reason we are more confident in regular almonds than baru almonds is that studies have been done over and over in more than a dozen randomized controlled trials, whereas in the only other cholesterol trial of baru nuts, researchers found no significant benefit for LDL cholesterol, even at the same 20-gram dose given for even longer—a period of eight weeks.

    That’s disappointing, but it isn’t the primary reason I would suggest choosing other nuts instead of baru nuts. I would do so because we can’t get raw baru nuts. They contain certain compounds that must be inactivated by heat before we can eat them. The reason raw nuts are preferable is because of advanced glycation end-products (AGEs), so-called glycotoxins, which are known to contribute to increased oxidative stress and inflammation.

    Glycotoxins are naturally present in uncooked animal-derived foods, and dry-heat cooking like grilling can make things worse. The three highest recorded levels have been in bacon, broiled hot dogs, and roasted barbecued chicken skin—nothing even comes close to that, not even Chicken McNuggets, as you can see below and at 3:50 in my video.

    However, any foods high in fat and protein can create AGEs at high enough temperatures. So, although plant foods tend to “contain relatively few AGEs, even after cooking,” there are some high-fat, high-protein plant foods. But, again, AGEs aren’t a problem at all with most plant foods. See the AGE content in boiled tofu (in a soup, for instance), broiled tofu, a raw apple, a baked apple, a veggie burger—I was surprised that veggie burgers are so low in AGEs, even when baked or fried—and nuts and seeds, which are up in tofu territory, especially when roasted, which is why I would recommend raw nuts and seeds and nut and seed butters whenever you have a choice. See below and at 4:33 in my video.

    Doctor’s Note

    In my Daily Dozen checklist, I recommend eating a quarter cup of nuts or seeds or two tablespoons of nut or seed butter each day. Why? See related posts below. 

    For those unfamiliar with advanced glycation end-products (AGEs), check out the first two videos I did on them way back when: Glycotoxins and Avoiding Glycotoxins in Food.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • For the Fastest Egg Breakfast, I’ve Memorized This Clever 3-Ingredient Recipe

    [ad_1]

    Your morning routine just got a little easier.
    READ MORE…

    [ad_2]

    Alexandra Foster

    Source link

  • 25 Slow Cooker Chicken Recipes My Family Begs Me to Make (They Save My Weeknights)

    [ad_1]

    Jan ValdezAssistant Recipe Producer

    I cover recipe content on The Kitchn, write and update recipes and recipe roundups, and test recipes for the team. I have 10 years of experience working in R&D test kitchens, testing products and recipes, and at publishers including Serious Eats and EatingWell.

    [ad_2]

    Jan Valdez

    Source link

  • Taking Advantage of Sensory-Specific Satiety  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    How can we use sensory-specific satiety to our advantage?

    When we eat the same foods over and over, we become habituated to them and end up liking them less. That’s why the “10th bite of chocolate, for example, is desired less than the first bite.” We have a built-in biological drive to keep changing up our foods so we’ll be more likely to hit all our nutritional requirements. The drive is so powerful that even “imagined consumption reduces actual consumption.” When study participants imagined again and again that they were eating cheese and were then given actual cheese, they ate less of it than those who repeatedly imagined eating that food fewer times, imagined eating a different food (such as candy), or did not imagine eating the food at all.

    Ironically, habituation may be one of the reasons fad “mono diets,” like the cabbage soup diet, the oatmeal diet, or meal replacement shakes, can actually result in better adherence and lower hunger ratings compared to less restrictive diets.

    In the landmark study “A Satiety Index of Common Foods,” in which dozens of foods were put to the test, boiled potatoes were found to be the most satiating food. Two hundred and forty calories of boiled potatoes were found to be more satisfying in terms of quelling hunger than the same number of calories of any other food tested. In fact, no other food even came close, as you can see below and at 1:14 in my video Exploiting Sensory-Specific Satiety for Weight Loss.

    No doubt the low calorie density of potatoes plays a role. In order to consume 240 calories, nearly one pound of potatoes must be eaten, compared to just a few cookies, and even more apples, grapes, and oranges must be consumed. Each fruit was about 40 percent less satiating than potatoes, though, as shown here and at 1:45 in my video. So, an all-potato diet would probably take the gold—the Yukon gold—for the most bland, monotonous, and satiating diet.

    A mono diet, where only one food is eaten, is the poster child for unsustainability—and thank goodness for that. Over time, they can lead to serious nutrient deficiencies, such as blindness from vitamin A deficiency in the case of white potatoes.

    The satiating power of potatoes can still be brought to bear, though. Boiled potatoes beat out rice and pasta in terms of a satiating side dish, cutting as many as about 200 calories of intake off a meal. Compared to boiled and mashed potatoes, fried french fries or even baked fries do not appear to have the same satiating impact.

    To exploit habituation for weight loss while maintaining nutrient abundance, we could limit the variety of unhealthy foods we eat while expanding the variety of healthy foods. In that way, we can simultaneously take advantage of the appetite-suppressing effects of monotony while diversifying our fruit and vegetable portfolio. Studies have shown that a greater variety of calorie-dense foods, like sweets and snacks, is associated with excess body fat, but a greater variety of vegetables appears protective. When presented with a greater variety of fruit, offered a greater variety of vegetables, or given a greater variety of vegetable seasonings, people may consume a greater quantity, crowding out less healthy options.

    The first 20 years of the official Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended generally eating “a variety of foods.” In the new millennium, they started getting more precise, specifying a diversity of healthier foods, as seen below and at 3:30 in my video. 

    A pair of Harvard and New York University dietitians concluded in their paper “Dietary Variety: An Overlooked Strategy for Obesity and Chronic Disease Control”: “Choose and prepare a greater variety of plant-based foods,” recognizing that a greater variety of less healthy options could be counterproductive.

    So, how can we respond to industry attempts to lure us into temptation by turning our natural biological drives against us? Should we never eat really delicious food? No, but it may help to recognize the effects hyperpalatable foods can have on hijacking our appetites and undermining our body’s better judgment. We can also use some of those same primitive impulses to our advantage by minimizing our choices of the bad and diversifying our choices of the good. In How Not to Diet, I call this “Meatball Monotony and Veggie Variety.” Try picking out a new fruit or vegetable every time you shop.

    In my own family’s home, we always have a wide array of healthy snacks on hand to entice the finickiest of tastes. The contrasting collage of colors and shapes in fruit baskets and vegetable platters beat out boring bowls of a single fruit because they make you want to mix it up and try a little of each. And with different healthy dipping sauces, the possibilities are endless.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Are Raw Mushrooms Safe to Eat?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Microwaving is probably the most efficient way to reduce agaritine levels in fresh mushrooms.

    There is a toxin in plain white button mushrooms called agaritine, which may be carcinogenic. Plain white button mushrooms grow to be cremini (brown) mushrooms, and cremini mushrooms grow to be portobello mushrooms. They’re all the very same mushroom, similar to how green bell peppers are just unripe red bell peppers. The amount of agaritine in these mushrooms can be reduced through cooking: Frying, microwaving, boiling, and even just freezing and thawing lower the levels. “It is therefore recommended to process/cook Button Mushroom before consumption,” something I noted in a video that’s now more than a decade old.

    However, as shown below and at 0:51 in my video Is It Safe to Eat Raw Mushrooms?, if you look at the various cooking methods, the agaritine in these mushrooms isn’t completely destroyed. Take dry baking, for example: Baking for ten minutes at about 400° Fahrenheit (“a process similar to pizza baking”) only cuts the agaritine levels by about a quarter, so 77 percent still remains.

    Boiling looks better, appearing to wipe out more than half the toxin after just five minutes, but the agaritine isn’t actually eliminated. Instead, it’s just transferred to the cooking water. So, levels within the mushrooms drop by about half at five minutes and by 90 percent after an hour, but that’s mostly because the agartine is leaching into the broth. So, if you’re making soup, for instance, five minutes of boiling is no more effective than dry baking for ten minutes, and, even after an hour, about half still remains.

    Frying for five to ten minutes eliminates a lot of agartine, but microwaving is not only a more healthful way to cook, but it works even better, as you can see here and at 1:39 in my video. Researchers found that just one minute in the microwave “reduced the agaritine content of the mushrooms by 65%,” and only 30 seconds of microwaving eliminated more than 50 percent. So, microwaving is probably the easiest way to reduce agaritine levels in fresh mushrooms. 
    My technique is to add dried mushrooms into the pasta water when I’m making spaghetti. Between the reductions of 20 percent or so from the drying and 60 percent or so from boiling for ten minutes and straining, more than 90 percent of agaritine is eliminated.

    Should we be concerned about the residual agaritine? According to a review funded by the mushroom industry, not at all. “The available evidence to date suggests that agaritine from consumption of…mushrooms poses no known toxicological risk to healthy humans.” The researchers acknowledge agartine is considered a potential carcinogen in mice, but then that data needs to be extrapolated to human health outcomes.

    The Swiss Institute of Technology, for example, estimated that the average mushroom consumption in the country would be expected to cause about two cases of cancer per one hundred thousand people. That is similar to consumption in the United States, as seen below and at 3:00 in my video, so “one could theoretically expect about 20 cancer deaths per 1 x 106 [one million] lives from mushroom consumption.” In comparison, typically, with a new chemical, pesticide, or food additive, we’d like to see the cancer risk lower than one in a million. “By this approach, the average mushroom consumption of Switzerland is 20-fold too high to be acceptable. To remain under the limit”—and keep risk down to one in a million—“‘mushroom lovers’ would have to restrict their consumption of mushrooms to one 50-g serving every 250 days!” That’s about a half-cup serving once in just over eight months. To put that into perspective, even if you were eating a single serving every single day, the resulting additional cancer risk would only be about one in ten thousand. “Put another way, if 10,000 people consumed a mushroom meal daily for 70 years, then in addition to the 3000 cancer cases arising from other factors, one more case could be attributed to consuming mushrooms.” 
    But, again, this is all based “on the presumption that results in such mouse models are equally valid in humans.” Indeed, this is all just extrapolating from mice data. What we need is a huge prospective study to examine the association between mushroom consumption and cancer risk in humans, but there weren’t any such studies—until now.

    Researchers titled their paper: “Mushroom Consumption and Risk of Total and Site-Specific Cancer in Two Large U.S. [Harvard] Prospective Cohorts” and found “no association between mushroom consumption and total and site-specific cancers in U.S. women and men.”

    Eating raw or undercooked shiitake mushrooms can cause something else, though: shiitake mushroom flagellate dermatitis. Flagellate as in flagellation, whipping, flogging. Below and at 4:48 in my video, you can see a rash that makes it look as if you’ve been whipped.

    Here and at 4:58 in my video is another photo of the rash. It’s thought to be caused by a compound in shiitake mushrooms called lentinan, but because heat denatures it, it only seems to be a problem with raw or undercooked mushrooms.

    Now, it is rare. Only about 1 in 50 people are even susceptible, and it goes away on its own in a week or two. Interestingly, it can strike as many as ten days after eating shiitake mushrooms, which is why people may not make the connection. One unfortunate man suffered on and off for 16 years before a diagnosis. Hopefully, a lot of doctors will watch this video, and if they ever see a rash like this, they’ll tell their patients to cook their shiitakes.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Can We Safely Use Melamine Dishes and Polyamide Plastic Utensils? | NutritionFacts.org

    Can We Safely Use Melamine Dishes and Polyamide Plastic Utensils? | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    I recommend glass, ceramic, porcelain, or stainless steel tableware and wooden or stainless steel cooking utensils.

    Melamine is used to make a variety of hard plastic “food contact items such as cups, plates, bowls, and utensils because they are dishwasher safe, inexpensive, and durable.” If that word sounds familiar, it may be because melamine has also been added illegally to protein products to game the system to make it appear that “food commodities” like pet food contain more protein than they actually do. By 2007, more than a thousand potentially contaminatedpet food products were recalled after “the chemical was found to be a contaminant in wheat gluten used in those products,” but not before it caused disease and death in pets throughout North America. 

    “It is presumed that melamine was intentionally added by suppliers in China to falsely elevate the measured protein content and, hence, the monetary value of these products.” The pet food scandal was just the writing on the wall. The following year, “melamine was discovered to be the cause of an outbreak of urinary tract stones and renal failure” (kidney stones and kidney failure), affecting hundreds of thousands of infants and young children throughout China. “Investigations revealed that the compound was added illegally to powdered milk and baby formulas to falsify protein content.” 

    As I discuss in my video Are Melamine Dishes and Polyamide Plastic Utensils Safe?, in the United States, you can find it in food packaging and sneaking its way into animal feed. However, those using melamine dishware can be exposed directly, as it migrates straight into the food upon exposure to heat. In fact, “cooking spoons and crockery made of melamine resin are not suited for microwaves and cooking,” according to food safety authorities. Okay, but what if you never cook with it, fry with it, or microwave it? What if you just use melamine to eat out of? 

    In “A Crossover Study of Noodle Soup Consumption in Melamine Bowls and Total Melamine Excretion in Urine,” researchers measured the amount of melamine flowing through the study subjects’ bodies compared to eating the same soup out of ceramic bowls. Their findings? “Melamine tableware may release large amounts of melamine when used to serve high-temperature foods”—and not even hot foods. “Melamine migration can be detectable from daily-use melamine-made tableware, even in the low temperatures,” like just warm water. Why do we care? Because the level of melamine you’re exposed to “is significantly associated with kidney function deterioration in patients with early-stage CKD,” chronic kidney disease, in which even relatively “low melamine levels may cause a rapid decline in kidney function.” So, I would suggest glass, ceramic, porcelain, or stainless steel tableware instead. 

    What about polyamide utensils, common black plastic spoons, spatulas, and the like? All sorts of different plastic materials are used in kitchen utensils. Polyamide is “typically used for turners [spatulas] or ladles due to their high heat and oil resistance.” “However, components of this plastic can migrate from the utensils into the food and consequently be ingested by consumers.” Out of 33 utensils tested, nearly 1 in 3 exceeded the upper safety limit. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment “recommends that consumers keep contact with food as brief as possible when using PA [polyamide] kitchen gadgets, especially at high temperatures,” such as above the temperature at which we may drink hot tea or coffee. 

    A different survey of black plastic kitchen utensils found about a third contaminated with flame retardant chemicals. Why? Because it may be made from plastic recycled from electronic equipment that was impregnated with the stuff. Then, should you dip the polyamide utensil into oil, the chemicals can trickle out, suggesting that using such “utensils for frying may lead to considerable dietary exposure.”

    The black dye itself in some polyamide utensils can leach out, too. Eventually, with enough use, the levels drop, but it may take the equivalent of boiling the utensils for about a hundred hours before the dye leaking approaches safety levels. It’s probably just easier to use utensils that are wooden or stainless steel.

    This is the last in a three-part series of cookware videos. If you missed the others, check out Are Aluminum Pots, Bottles, and Foil Safe? and Stainless Steel or Cast Iron: Which Cookware Is Best? Is Teflon Safe?.

    It may not be safe to microwave melamine, but what about microwaving in general? See Are Microwaves Safe? and The Effects of Radiation Leaking from Microwave Ovens. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Is Stainless Steel or Cast Iron Cookware Best? Is Teflon Safe? | NutritionFacts.org

    Is Stainless Steel or Cast Iron Cookware Best? Is Teflon Safe? | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    What is the best type of pots and pans to use?

    In my last video, I expressed concerns about the use of aluminum cookware. So, what’s the best type of pots and pans to use? As I discuss in my video Stainless Steel or Cast Iron: Which Cookware Is Best? Is Teflon Safe?, stainless steel is an excellent option. It’s the metal chosen for use “in applications where safety and hygiene are considered to be of the utmost importance, such as kitchenware.” But what about studies showing that the nickel and chromium in stainless steel, which keeps the iron in stainless unstained by rust, can leach into foods during cooking? The leaching only seems to occur when the cookware is brand new. “Metal leaching decreases with sequential cooking cycles and stabilizes after the sixth cooking cycle,” after the sixth time you cook with it. Under more common day-to-day conditions, the use of stainless steel pots is considered to be safe even for most people who are acutely sensitive to those metals. 

    A little leaching metal can even be a good thing in the case of straight iron, like a cast iron skillet, which can have the “beneficial effect” of helping to improve iron status and potentially reduce the incidence of iron deficiency anemia among children and women of reproductive age. The only caveat is that you don’t want to fry in cast iron. Frying isn’t healthy regardless of cookware type, but, at hot temperatures, vegetable oil can react with the iron to create trans fats. 

    What about using nonstick pans? Teflon, also known as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), “is used as an inner coating material in nonstick cookware.” Teflon’s dark history was the subject of a 2019 movie called Dark Waters, starring Mark Ruffalo and Anne Hathaway. Employees in DuPont’s Teflon division started giving birth to babies with deformities before “DuPont removed all female staff” from the unit. Of course, the corporation buried it all, hiding it from regulators and the public. “Despite this significant history of industry knowledge” about how toxic some of the chemicals used to make Teflon were, it was able to keep it hidden until, eventually, it was forced to settle for more than half a billion dollars after one of the chemicals was linked to “kidney and testicular cancers, pregnancy-induced hypertension, ulcerative colitis, and high cholesterol.”

    “At normal cooking temperatures, PTFE-coated cookware releases various gases and chemicals that present mild to severe toxicity.” As you can see below and at 2:38 in my video, different gases are released at different temperatures, and their toxic effects have been documented. 

    You’ve heard of “canaries in the coal mine”? This is more like “canaries in the kitchen, as cooking with Teflon cookware is well known to kill pet birds,” and Teflon-coated heat lamp bulbs can wipe out half a flock of chickens. 

    “Apart from the gases released during heating the cooking pans, the coating itself starts damaging after a certain period. It is normally advised to use slow heating when cooking in Teflon-coated pans,” but you can imagine how consumers might ignore that. And, if you aren’t careful, some of the Teflon can start chipping off and make its way into the food, though the effects of ingestion are unknown.

    I could find only one study that looks at the potential human health effects of cooking with nonstick pots and pans. Researchers found that the use of nonstick cookware was associated with about a 50 percent increased risk of colorectal cancer, but that may be because of what they were cooking. “Non-stick cookware is used in hazardous cooking methods (i.e. broiling, frying, grilling or barbecuing) at high temperatures mainly for meat, poultry or fish,” in which carcinogenic heterocyclic amines (HCA) are formed from the animal protein. Then, the animal fat can produce another class of carcinogens called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Though it’s possible it was the Teflon itself, which contains suspected carcinogens like that C8 compound from the movie Dark Waters, also known as PFOA, perfluorooctanoic acid.

    “Due to toxicity concerns, PFOA has been replaced with other chemicals such as GenX, but these new alternatives are also suspected to have similar toxicity.” We’ve already so contaminated the Earth with it, though, that we can get it prepackaged in food before it’s even cooked, particularly in dairy products, fish, and other meat; now, “meat is the main source of human exposure” to these toxic pollutants. Of those, seafood is the worst. In a study of diets from around the world, fish and other seafood were “major contributors” of the perfluoroalkyl substances, as expected, given that everything eventually flows into the sea. Though the aquatic food chain is the “primary transfer mechanism” for these toxins into the human diet, “food stored or prepared in greaseproof packaging materials,” like microwave popcorn, may also be a source. 

    In 2019, Oral-B Glide dental floss was tested. Six out of 18 dental floss products researchers tested showed evidence of Teflon-type compounds. Did those who used those kinds of floss end up with higher levels in their bloodstream? Yes, apparently so. Higher levels of perfluorohexanesulfonic acid were found in Oral-B Glide flossers, as you can see below and at 5:28 in my video.

    There are a lot of environmental exposures in the modern world we can’t avoid, but we shouldn’t make things worse by adding them to consumer products. At least we have some power to “lower [our] personal exposure to these harmful chemicals.”

    This is the second in a three-video series on cookware. The first was Are Aluminum Pots, Bottles, and Foil Safe?, and the next is Are Melamine Dishes and Polyamide Plastic Utensils Safe?.

    What about pressure cooking? I covered that in Does Pressure Cooking Preserve Nutrients?.

    So, what is the safest way to prepare meat? See Carcinogens in Meat. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Can We Safely Use Aluminum Foil, Bottles, and Pots?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Can We Safely Use Aluminum Foil, Bottles, and Pots?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    DNA damage is assessed in users of aluminum cookware.

    “Over the last decades, the toxicity of aluminum for humans has been heavily discussed and is still not completely clarified.” Those occupationally exposed to aluminum—for instance, in smelter plants—suffer from oxidative stress and free radicals that can damage their DNA. What about just using aluminum cookware? Articles like “Metal Exposures from Aluminum Cookware: An Unrecognized Public Health Risk in Developing Countries,” suggesting an “unrecognized public health risk,” were limited to the developing world where “cookware is made in informal shops by casting liquid aluminum melted from a collection of scrap metal,” including the likes of vehicle radiators, lead batteries, and computer parts, which is how you can get so much lead leaching into people’s food. 

    Then “The Relationship Between Plasma Aluminum Content, Lymphocyte DNA Damage, and Oxidative Status in Persons Using Aluminum Containers and Utensils Daily” was published, suggesting that aluminum itself may be harmful. Most of our aluminum exposure comes from processed junk food containing aluminum additives, “including those within some processed cheeses, baking powders, cake mixes, frozen dough, and pancake mixes.” However, about 20 percent of the daily intake of aluminum may come from aluminum cooking utensils, such as “pans, pots, kettles, and trays.” 

    Might this cause a problem? Researchers took blood from consumers who used aluminum cookware versus those who did not and found that not only did the aluminum users have twice the level of aluminum in their blood, as you can see below and at 1:33 in my video Are Aluminum Pots, Bottles, and Foil Safe?, but they had more free radical damage of their body fats and proteins. What’s more, the total antioxidant capacity of the bloodstream of those using aluminum cookware was compromised, so they suffered significantly more DNA damage. 

    Indeed, as you can see below and at 1:52 in my video, those with the highest levels of aluminum in their blood tended to suffer significantly more damage to their DNA. No surprise, since “aluminum is considered to be a pro-oxidant agent.”

    These folks weren’t just casually using aluminum pots, though. Specifically, they use them every day to cook and store acidic foods, like yogurt and tomato sauce, which can leach out more aluminum. But, even using “camping dishes,” which tend to be aluminum since it’s so light, for just one week, could greatly exceed the tolerable weekly intake guidelines, especially for children, if you incorporated something acidic, like marinating a fresh catch in lemon juice. Once in a while won’t make much difference, but these findings suggest that you may not want to cook in aluminum day in and day out. 

    What about aluminum drinking bottles? They’re nice and light, but children drinking two cups a day of tea or juice from them could exceed the tolerable aluminum exposure limit. So, out of an abundance of caution, safety authorities like the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment “recommend that consumers avoid the use of aluminum pots or dishes for acidic or salted foodstuffs such as apple sauce, rhubarb, tomato puree, or salt herring…thus prophylactically avoiding the ‘unnecessary ingestion’ of aluminum.” 

    What about aluminum foil? Wrapping and baking food in aluminum foil is a common culinary practice. The concern is that this could represent “a potentially hazardous source of aluminum in the human diet.” When put to the test, there was leakage of aluminum from the foil to the food, but the amount was so small that it would be more of an issue for small children or those suffering from diminished kidney function. 

    What about just wrapping food in foil to store it in the refrigerator? Only marginal increases in aluminum are seen—except when the food is in contact with the foil and, at the same time, certain other types of metal, such as stainless steel, which is largely iron. That sets up a battery and “can lead to tremendous food aluminum concentrations.” For example, as you can see below and at 4:34 in my video, the aluminum levels in a ham before and after a day coveredin foil are negligible; there’s hardly a bump in the foil-covered ham. But, if that same foil-wrapped ham sits on top of a steel tray or serving plate for a day, the aluminum levels in the ham shoot up.

    Finally, you know how aluminum foil is often glossy on one side and dull on the other? Which would be worse? Fish fillets were baked and grilled both ways, wrapped with the glossy side out versus the dull side out, and no significant difference was found.

    This is the first in a series of three videos on cookware. Stay tuned for Stainless Steel or Cast Iron: Which Cookware Is Best? Is Teflon Safe? and Are Melamine Dishes and Polyamide Plastic Utensils Safe?.

    I’ve discussed aluminum in antiperspirants, food, medications, and tea. Check out the related posts.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • My Homemade Italian Giardiniera Will Be the Star of Every Cookout (1000x Better Than Jarred!)

    My Homemade Italian Giardiniera Will Be the Star of Every Cookout (1000x Better Than Jarred!)

    [ad_1]

    We independently select these products—if you buy from one of our links, we may earn a commission. All prices were accurate at the time of publishing.

    Visit any Italian market and, tucked among the olives, capers, and roasted red peppers, you’ll find giardiniera. To Italians, giardiniera (pronounced jar-din-AIR-ah) is a way of saying pickled vegetables. The condiment is also known as verdure sott’aceto, which translates to “vegetables under vinegar.” The vegetables are usually eaten with salads or as an antipasto, often accompanied by cheeses or cured meats, but it’s also delicious stuffed into an Italian beef sandwich.

    Like many Italian dishes, there’s a traditional and an Italian-American version of giardiniera. The latter is referred to as “Chicago-style.” Italian-style giardiniera includes cauliflower, bell peppers, carrots, celery, and sometimes gherkins, and the vegetables are marinated in olive oil, red or white wine vinegar, herbs, and spices. Chicago-style giardiniera adds hot peppers to the mix, and the marinade contains little or no vinegar. This recipe falls squarely in the middle of these two iterations: It’s got lots of vinegary tang, plus the added heat of pepperoncinis.

    Key Ingredients in Giardiniera

    Storage and Make-Ahead Tips 

    [ad_2]

    Kelli Foster

    Source link

  • Processed Foods and Obesity  | NutritionFacts.org

    Processed Foods and Obesity  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    The rise in the U.S. calorie supply responsible for the obesity epidemic wasn’t just about more food, but a different kind of food.

    The rise in the number of calories provided by the food supply since the 1970s “is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity.” Similar spikes in calorie surplus were noted in developed countries around the world in parallel with and presumed to be primarily responsible for, the expanding waistlines of their populations. After taking exports into account, by the year 2000, the United States was producing 3,900 calories for every man, woman, and child—nearly twice as much as many people need. 

    It wasn’t always this way. The number of calories in the food supply actually declined over the first half of the twentieth century and only started its upward climb to unprecedented heights in the 1970s. The drop in the first half of the century was attributed to the reduction in hard manual labor. The population had decreased energy needs, so they ate decreased energy diets. They didn’t need all the extra calories. But then the “energy balance flipping point” occurred, when the “move less, stay lean phase” that existed throughout most of the century turned into the “eat more, gain weight phase” that plagues us to this day. So, what changed?

    As I discuss in my video The Role of Processed Foods in the Obesity Epidemic, what happened in the 1970s was a revolution in the food industry. In the 1960s, most food was prepared and cooked in the home. The typical “married female, not working” spent hours a day cooking and cleaning up after meals. (The “married male, non-working spouse” averaged nine minutes, as you can see below and at 1:34 in my video.) But then a mixed-blessing transformation took place. Technological advances in food preservation and packaging enabled manufacturers to mass prepare and distribute food for ready consumption. The metamorphosis has been compared to what happened a century before with the mass production and supply of manufactured goods during the Industrial Revolution. But this time, they were just mass-producing food. Using new preservatives, artificial flavors, and techniques, such as deep freezing and vacuum packaging, food corporations could take advantage of economies of scale to mass produce “very durable, palatable, and ready-to-consume” edibles that offer “an enormous commercial advantage over fresh and perishable whole or minimally processed foods.” 

    Think ye of the Twinkie. With enough time and effort, “ambitious cooks” could create a cream-filled cake, but now they are available around every corner for less than a dollar. If every time someone wanted a Twinkie, they had to bake it themselves, they’d probably eat a lot fewer Twinkies. The packaged food sector is now a multitrillion-dollar industry.

    Consider the humble potato. We’ve long been a nation of potato eaters, but we usually baked or boiled them. Anyone who’s made fries from scratch knows what a pain it is, with all the peeling, cutting, and splattering of oil. But with sophisticated machinations of mechanization, production became centralized and fries could be shipped at -40°F to any fast-food deep-fat fryer or frozen food section in the country to become “America’s favorite vegetable.” Nearly all the increase in potato consumption in recent decades has been in the form of french fries and potato chips. 

    Cigarette production offers a compelling parallel. Up until automated rolling machines were invented, cigarettes had to be rolled by hand. It took 50 workers to produce the same number of cigarettes a machine could make in a minute. The price plunged and production leapt into the billions. Cigarette smoking went from being “relatively uncommon” to being almost everywhere. In the 20th century, the average per capita cigarette consumption rose from 54 cigarettes a year to 4,345 cigarettes “just before the first landmark Surgeon General’s Report” in 1964. The average American went from smoking about one cigarette a week to half a pack a day.

    Tobacco itself was just as addictive before and after mass marketing. What changed was cheap, easy access. French fries have always been tasty, but they went from being rare, even in restaurants, to being accessible around each and every corner (likely next to the gas station where you can get your Twinkies and cigarettes).

    The first Twinkie dates back to 1930, though, and Ore-Ida started selling frozen french fries in the 1950s. There has to be more to the story than just technological innovation, and we’ll explore that next.

    This explosion of processed junk was aided and abetted by Big Government at the behest of Big Food, which I explore in my video The Role of Taxpayer Subsidies in the Obesity Epidemic.

    This is the fifth video in an 11-part series. Here are the first four: 

    Videos still to come are listed in the related videos below.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • This “Cowboy Candy” Is Guaranteed to Make You Legendary at Any Summer Cookout

    This “Cowboy Candy” Is Guaranteed to Make You Legendary at Any Summer Cookout

    [ad_1]

    Rachel PerlmutterCulinary Producer

    Rachel Perlmutter is a recipe developer, food stylist, and culinary producer at The Kitchn. Originally from Houston, Texas, she spends her free time trying to perfect kolaches and breakfast tacos that taste like home. Rachel currently lives in Brooklyn with her partner, dog, cat and rabbit, where they all share a love of seasonal local produce.

    [ad_2]

    Rachel Perlmutter

    Source link

  • Once I Started Grilling Steak Like THIS, I’ve Never Made It Any Other Way (It’s so Juicy!)

    Once I Started Grilling Steak Like THIS, I’ve Never Made It Any Other Way (It’s so Juicy!)

    [ad_1]

    Place the steaks on the grill. Cover and cook until dark grill marks form on the bottom, 3 to 4 minutes. Flip the steaks, cover again, and cook until grill marks form on the second side, 3 to 4 minutes. Check the temperature: For medium-rare, an instant-read thermometer inserted into the center of a steak should register 120ºF to 125ºF. If the steaks are not ready, continue to grill, flipping every minute or so, until the steak reaches the right temperature. If the steaks are browning too quickly, turn a gas grill down to medium-high or move the steaks to a cooler part of a charcoal grill.

    [ad_2]

    Christine Gallary

    Source link

  • Cherry Pie Mini Cheesecakes Have the Most Brilliant (Store-Bought!) Surprise

    Cherry Pie Mini Cheesecakes Have the Most Brilliant (Store-Bought!) Surprise

    [ad_1]

    You don’t even have to make a crust or topping.
    READ MORE…

    [ad_2]

    Christine Gallary

    Source link

  • I Never Thought I Needed a Grill Pan, But the OXO “Great” Grill Pan Completely Changed My Mind

    I Never Thought I Needed a Grill Pan, But the OXO “Great” Grill Pan Completely Changed My Mind

    [ad_1]

    We independently select these products—if you buy from one of our links, we may earn a commission. All prices were accurate at the time of publishing.

    I usually try to skip trendy kitchen gadgets in favor of quality, time-tested cookware that can serve multiple purposes — both because I live in a small apartment and because I subscribe to the if-it-ain’t-broke-don’t-fix-it life motto.

    Avocado slicer? Don’t need it — I already have a paring knife. Air fryer? All my editors have one, but personally I’d rather not forgo the counter space. Vegetable chopper? I actually enjoy the meditative task of chopping, thank you very much. 

    And because I live in a city apartment, I don’t have access to a grill. Shocker, right? But given the season (hello, summer!), plus the fact that some foods are just better with a deep, flavorful char, I gave the OXO Good Grips Nonstick 11” Square Grill Pan a chance in my quest for some proper grill marks.

    What’s Great About OXO’s Grill Pan? 

    OXO touts the “three-layer, German-engineered nonstick coating” as one of the pan’s main attributes, and I can’t disagree. It’s made with a particularly hardy nonstick coating (which is also hard to come by in the age of ceramic nonstick pans), which I anticipate will hold up to years of use. Because of its hard anodized body, the pan has a nice heft (but it’s not very heavy) and heats pretty rapidly (even on my cursed electric-coil stovetop) while distributing heat throughout, so even vegetables relegated to the corners of the pan can still pick up a nice sear. 

    Just like with my regular cast iron or stainless steel skillet, I got a lovely sear on meats, vegetables, bread, and more, but unlike a regular skillet, the heat is concentrated on what’s in contact with the raised ridges — imparting those characteristic little grill lines. 

    I was able to get quick color and flavor on asparagus (one of my favorite vegetables to cook on a traditional grill) without losing the snappy texture, and I successfully pressed a grilled cheese into a pseudo-panini by applying pressure while crisping.

    It’s also fabulous for meal-prepping pounded-thin chicken breasts, as they won’t curl up and lose all their juices (or, worse, remain white and colorless) when flash-grilled in the pan. Other things I’m looking forward to cooking in the OXO pan: a thick tuna steak that would be incomplete without grill marks, farmers market zucchini, delicate cod or flounder for grilled fish tacos, charred corn on the cob, and caprese sandwiches.

    I don’t often cook red meat at home, but when I do, it’s likely a filet mignon and I’m inclined to butter baste it, which can be difficult to do in a grill pan given the shape. But since red meat is a rarity for me, this isn’t a big issue.

    How Do You Maintain the OXO Grill Pan?

    Keep in mind that because this pan has a nonstick coating, the heat shouldn’t be cranked up past medium. You’ll also want to avoid using metal utensils with it, and it’ll need hand-washing in order to maintain the coating. These are all things I do anyway with my usual cookware.

    Would I Recommend OXO’s Grill Pan?

    [ad_2]

    Caroline Mullen

    Source link

  • My Restaurant-Worthy Queso Fundido Always Has Everyone Fighting for the Last Scoop

    My Restaurant-Worthy Queso Fundido Always Has Everyone Fighting for the Last Scoop

    [ad_1]

    Brace yourself for the epic cheese pull.
    READ MORE…

    [ad_2]

    Laura Manzano

    Source link

  • One of Our Favorite Meat Thermometers Is 30% Off Just in Time for Grilling Season

    One of Our Favorite Meat Thermometers Is 30% Off Just in Time for Grilling Season

    [ad_1]

    Get it before it’s gone!
    READ MORE…

    [ad_2]

    Morgan Pryor

    Source link

  • These One-Bowl Banana Muffins Are So Easy, I Bake a Batch Every Single Week

    These One-Bowl Banana Muffins Are So Easy, I Bake a Batch Every Single Week

    [ad_1]

    With fresh or frozen bananas.
    READ MORE…

    [ad_2]

    Patty Catalano

    Source link

  • A King’s Breakfast, a Prince’s Lunch, and a Pauper’s Dinner  | NutritionFacts.org

    A King’s Breakfast, a Prince’s Lunch, and a Pauper’s Dinner  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Harness the power of your circadian rhythms for weight loss by making breakfast or lunch your main meal of the day.

    In my last chronobiology video, we learned that calories eaten at breakfast are significantly less fattening than the same number of calories eaten at dinner, as you can see at 0:14 in my video Breakfast Like a King, Lunch Like a Prince, Dinner Like a Pauper, but who eats just one meal a day? 

    What about simply shifting our daily distribution of calories to earlier in the day? Israeli researchers randomized overweight and obese women into one of two isocaloric groups, meaning each group was given the same number of total calories. One group got a 700-calorie breakfast, a 500-calorie lunch, and a 200-calorie dinner, and the other group got the opposite—200 calories for breakfast, 500 for lunch, and 700 for dinner. Since all of the study participants were eating the same number of calories overall, the king-prince-pauper group should have lost the same amount of weight as the pauper-prince-king group, right? But, no. As you can see in the graph below and at 1:01 in my video, the bigger breakfast group lost more than twice as much weight, in addition to slimming about an extra two inches off their waistline. By the end of the 12-week study, the king-prince-pauper group lost 11 more pounds than the bigger dinner group, dropping 19 pounds compared to only 8 pounds lost by the pauper-prince-king group—despite eating the same number of calories. That’s the power of chronobiology, the power of our circadian rhythm. 

    What was the caloric distribution of the king-prince-pauper group getting 700 calories at breakfast, 500 at lunch, and 200 at dinner? They got 50 percent of calories at breakfast, 36 percent at lunch, and only 14 percent of calories at dinner, which is pretty skewed. What about 20 percent for dinner instead? A 50% – 30% – 20% spread, compared to 20% – 30% – 50%?

    Again, the bigger breakfast group experienced “dramatically increased” weight loss, a difference of about nine pounds in eight weeks with no significant difference in overall caloric intake or physical activity between the groups, as shown in the graph below and at 1:57 in my video. 

    Instead of 80 percent of calories consumed at breakfast and lunch, what about 70 percent compared to 55 percent? Researchers randomized overweight “homemakers” to eat 70 percent of their calories at breakfast, a morning snack, and lunch, leaving 30 percent for an afternoon snack and dinner, or a more balanced 55 percent from the time they woke up through lunch. In both cases, only a minority of calories were eaten for dinner, as you can see below, and at 2:25 in my video. Was there any difference between eating 70 percent of calories through lunch versus only 55 percent? Yes, those eating more calories earlier in the day had significantly more weight loss and slimming. 

    Concluded the researchers: “Stories about food and nutrition are in the news on an almost daily basis, but information can sometimes be confusing and contradictory. Clear messages should be proposed to reach the greatest number of people. One clear communication from physicians could be ‘If you want to lose weight, eat more in the morning than in the evening.’” 

    Even just telling people to eat their main meal at lunch rather than dinner may help. Despite comparable caloric intakes, participants in a weight-loss program randomized to get advice to make lunch their main meal beat out those who instead were told to make dinner their main meal.

    The proverb “Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, and dinner like a pauper” evidently has another variant: “Eat breakfast yourself, share lunch with a friend, and give dinner away to your enemy.” I wouldn’t go that far, but there does appear to be a metabolic benefit to frontloading the bulk of your calories earlier in the day.

    The evidence isn’t completely consistent, though. A review of dietary pattern studies questioned whether reducing evening intake would facilitate weight loss, citing a study that showed the evening-weighted group did better than the heavy-morning-meal group. Perhaps that was because the morning meal group was given “chocolate, cookies, cake, ice cream, chocolate mousse or donuts” for breakfast. So, chronobiology can be trumped by a junk-food methodology. Overall, the what is still more important than the when. Caloric timing may be used to accelerate weight loss, but it doesn’t substitute for a healthy diet. When he said there was a time for every purpose under heaven, Ecclesiastes probably wasn’t talking about donuts.

    When I heard about this, what I wanted to know was how. Why does our body store less food as fat in the morning? I explore the mechanism in my next video, Eat More Calories in the Morning Than the Evening.

    This is the fifth video in an 11-part series on chronobiology. If you missed the first four, check out the related posts below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • The Old-School Cake I’ve Been Making for Over 20 Years (Everyone Begs Me for the Recipe)

    The Old-School Cake I’ve Been Making for Over 20 Years (Everyone Begs Me for the Recipe)

    [ad_1]

    I’ve been saying this for years, and I’ll continue to say it: Classic pound cake is the most underrated cake. This timeless dessert is one of the easiest cake recipes you can mix together, and the reward is much higher than the effort it requires. Each tender, dense slice delivers the most unbelievable rich, buttery flavor. 

    [ad_2]

    Kelli Foster

    Source link

  • This Is the Best Rack of Lamb You’ll Ever Make (Cooks in Less Than 30 Minutes!)

    This Is the Best Rack of Lamb You’ll Ever Make (Cooks in Less Than 30 Minutes!)

    [ad_1]

    Rachel PerlmutterCulinary Producer

    Rachel Perlmutter is a recipe developer, food stylist, and culinary producer at The Kitchn. Originally from Houston, Texas, she spends her free time trying to perfect kolaches and breakfast tacos that taste like home. Rachel currently lives in Brooklyn with her partner, dog, cat and rabbit, where they all share a love of seasonal local produce.

    [ad_2]

    Rachel Perlmutter

    Source link