Discussion Board

Are homemade fruit smoothies okay to eat? Do you get the same amount of fiber? I've been having about one a day, just frozen fruit and water or a little bit of nonfat soymilk. I don't seem to be able to lose any weight and wonder if this is sabotaging my efforts? Thanks to anyone with insight.

JP

Hi Janis

Consuming the whole fruit, especially in relation to weight loss, is a better idea.

The more you grind up the food, the more surface area you expose and the quicker it is absorbed and the larger potential impact on blood sugar and the quicker it leaves your stomach and the less filling it is. In addition, the ground up fiber does not work as well in helping control blood sugar and contributing to a sense of fullness.

Perhaps you are familiar with the graph Dr McD shows of the classic experiment comparing apples, to apple sauce to apple juice in relation to blood sugar and absorption, which highlights this point.

You can do the experiment yourself. Take the same amount of food you would blend up in your smoothie and try consuming it as whole food. See which one is more filling initially and also keeps you full longer. Also, see the difference in their effects on your blood sugar at one hour & two hours.

Also, weight is a function of energy balance, and so if you are not losing weight, you are not creating an energy balance. But eating less is not the solution as it causes most people to just be hungry. The real solution is focusing on more low calorie dense foods, (ie, fruits, veggies, starchy veggies, unrefined intact whole grains, & legumes) and minimizing and/or avoiding the refined processed grains and starches (breads, bagels, dry cereals, crackers) will fill you up more for less calories. This is well described in the McDougall Maximum Weight Loss program/book.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

Thanks Jeff. I figured the whole fruit would be better, but smoothies are so good! Oh well, guess I should put away the blender for awhile and eat up all those apples and oranges I have in the refrig instead.

Thanks for the help.

JP

I find using my fruit in a smoothie means that I eat a lot more greens. I think it's a bit of a trade off. Surely some ground flaxseeds would slow transition time.

I actually started adding 1/2 a cup of soy milk to do slow things down a bit. On the ETL board, many people start the day by combining fruit, greens and nuts in a smoothie.

This is probably a dumb question. But do you have to have a heavy duty blender (like a Vita-mix) to add greens to smoothies? I have been using a small single serving type blender (like a Magic Bullet) to make my fruit smoothies. I just can't picture adding a spinach leaf in? Do you all use fresh leaves or frozen ones?

JP

Hi Janis

No doubt, the BlendTech and the Vita-Mix are state of the art and two of the highest rated. However, I own a Oster blender that cost about $35 and have for decades, and have found it worthy of most any task I ever ask of it. And, I have asked quite a bit of it over the years

The main benefit of the Oster blenders over most regular blenders is that it has an all metal drive system and not plastic. This means it is less likely to "skip" and also doesn't wear out from extended use. Even some consumer organizations have rated them fairly high. A recent review rated 2 of the Osters just below the Vita Mix and the BlendTech.

I don't use the blender much anymore as I found it is important to chew food as chewing is an important part of digestion and oral and dental health, and is associated with increased satiety. It is also great exercise for all your facial muscles.

While there are many other factors related to chewing and the results I am posting below, chewing ability has been found to be associated with heart health and longevity.

I just do not see this kind of information, even on a casual level, for the benefit of juicing.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

Association of chewing ability with cardiovascular disease mortality in the
80-year-old Japanese population.
Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2008 Feb;15(1):104-106.
PMID: 18277194

Abstract

Background: Few have studied the association between chewing ability and
longevity.

Design and methods: In this prospective study, we analyzed 697 80-year-old
participants residing in Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan. Chewing ability was
assessed on the basis of the types of food that each participant reported
being able to chew.

Results: During follow-up, 108 participants died. Patients reporting the
lowest numbers of chewable foods were associated with higher risks of
cardiovascular mortality than those who were able to chew all the types of
food surveyed (multivariate hazard ratio: 4.60; 95% confidence interval:
1.01-21.1).

Conclusions: Impaired dentition status with poor masticatory ability was an
independent risk factor for cardiovascular mortality in active elderly
individuals.



Relationship between chewing ability and 4-year mortality in a cohort
of 80-year-old Japanese people.
Oral Dis. 2007 Mar;13(2):214-9.

OBJECTIVE: Poor oral health has been reported to be a risk indicator
of mortality, however, few data are available regarding the
relationship between chewing ability and mortality. We examined the
relationship between self-assessed chewing ability and mortality in
elderly subjects.

DESIGN: Prospective study.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS:
Participating in the study were 697 people (277 males, 420 females)
from 1282 individuals (80 years old) residing in Fukuoka Prefecture,
Japan. Data on oral and systemic health status through questionnaires,
accompanied by physical and laboratory blood examinations were
obtained. Chewing ability was assessed based on the number of types of
food each subject reported as able to chew by questionnaire.

RESULTS:
A total of 108 subjects died between 1998 and 2002. Those with the
lowest number of chewable foods were associated with higher risk of
mortality than those with the ability to chew all of the 15 types of
food surveyed [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.38, 95% confidence interval (95%
CI) = 1.07-5.29], though other parameters including current smoking,
low serum albumin, and poor physical health status were more
significant. Further, reduced chewing ability of soft foods increased
the risk (HR = 2.65, 95% CI = 1.20-5.87).

CONCLUSION: Chewing ability
was associated with mortality in a population of 80-year-old community
residents, and may be a predictor for survival rate.

PMID: 17305625

Hi All,

One more.

Notice the conclusion.

I wonder what this same "profound and significant increase in the secretion rate of inorganic and organic protective components in saliva during masticatory stimulation" would have on all other health issues and the ability to better digest our food and enhance nutrient absorption. Maybe one of the reasons we do not absorp nutrients as well as we should is because we do not chew our food as well as we should.

Again, while I am not saying one should never juice, blend or have a smoothie but we should be aware of the potential impact of our choices on our health.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

Gastroenterology Volume 110, Issue 3, Pages 675-681 (March 1996)

Enhancement of salivary esophagoprotection: Rationale for a physiological approach to gastroesophageal reflux disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Secretion of salivary protective factors in patient s with gastroesophageal reflux disease is impaired. However, the impact of physiological stimulus mastication on salivary protective factors output remains largely unknown. The aim of this study was to measure salivary volume, pH, HCO3-, peptide growth factors, prostaglandin, mucin, protein, and viscosity during mastication.

METHODS: In 31 asymptomatic volunteers and 36 patients with endoscopic reflux esophagitis, in basal and parafilm chewing-stimulated saliva, its volume, pH, bicarbonate, epidermal growth factor, transforming growth factor alpha, prostaglandin E2, mucin, protein, and viscosity were investigated.

RESULTS: Masticatory stimulation in controls resulted in a significantly increased salivary volume by 205%, pH by 7.6%, bicarbonate by 335%, mucin by 137%, protein by 98%, epidermal growth factor by 123%, and prostaglandin E2 by 132%, accompanied by an increase in transforming growth factor alpha by 80% with 19% decline in viscosity vs. basal values. Mastication in reflux esophagitis significantly increased salivary volume by 215%, pH by 6.8%, bicarbonate by 257%, mucin by 135%, protein by 94%, epidermal growth factor by 207%, and prostaglandin E2 by 240%, whereas transforming growth factor alpha increased by 225% and viscosity by 64% when compared with corresponding basal values.

CONCLUSIONS: A profound and significant increase in the secretion rate of inorganic and organic protective components in saliva during masticatory stimulation suggests its potential value as a therapeutic approach to the treatment of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. (Gastroenterology 1996 Mar;110(3):675-81)

Great, I now have two high priced obsolete objects sitting on my kitchen bench. One is a green power juicer and the other is a Vita Prep Vitamix. Both cost nearly $1000 AUD and now thaet seems like a waste of money, shucks!

Sometimes, with all the stuff that is promoted for living naturally and healthy, it is a wonder how the Japanese on the island of Okinawans, and the Tarahumara Indians living in the secluded mountains of Mexico, and the Italians on top of that mountain in Sardinia, and those living on the island of Crete.... got to be the longest lived healthiest populations ever.

Many of these populations live with very low economic standards of living and have barely enough to get by, let alone any money for extras or extravagance.

One day, many years ago, I came home to my kitchen and looked at all the gadgets, appliances, blenders, juicers (citrus and champion), sprouters, dehydrators, water purifiers, grinders, etc etc, and said to myself, "if this is healthy natural living, I dont want any part of it."

So I put them all up for sale on some message boards. Now I live much simplier and healthier.

It is not that your appliances have no value. Just keep them in their proper context, enjoy them, and don't forget to chew your food.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

Since this discussion, I was emailed and told that Vita-Mix has research showing that by using their blender you can dramatically increase the availability and absorption of the nutrients in food.

http://www.vitamix.com/household/infoce ... opene.html

I responded that I knew of no such published study supporting these claims and if they could find the evidence, to please send it to me.

I also thought it was very clever of Vita Mix that the article they are posting at their website under the heading "Research Proves" says...

"Health Research and Studies Center in Los Altos, California published results from a recent study of plasma carotenoid values of three different preparation and consumption methods of vegetables."

This is a real play on words. The results were never published in a peer reviewed medical journal but in reading this article under the heading it is listed under, some people may get that impression. What did happen is that this Health Research and Studies Center themselves published an article in a non medical, non peer reviewed journal on the results of this non published study.

This is two completely different things.

Then, this person contacted the Vita Mix company to find out more about the study and was sent the following unpublished abstract.

The paper they are quoting was delivered at an American College of Nutrition symposium in Tennessee in 2003. The abstract was published in the symposium section of the October, 2003 journal as an abstract, not as a peer reviewed study.

The full paper, in over 5 years, has never been published nor have these results been replicated, the true test of validity.

Here is the abstract.

PLASMA ORAC AFTER INGESTION OF FRESH, RAW FRUITS PREPARED IN A HIGH-POWER BLENDER. Spiller, G. Health Research and Studies Center, Los Altos, CA.

This study tested the effect on plasma ORAC (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity) of raw, fresh fruit prepared with a high-power blender (Vita-Mix) that would allow the consumption of the stems, seeds and peels of some common fruits. The blend was made from whole grapes with seeds and stems, 450g; strawberries with tops, 112g; blueberries, 28 g; pineapple with core, 112 g; and orange with seeds and some peel, 112 g. The formula was fed in 3 ways: 1. as a blend in the high-power blender with all the fiber present, 2. as whole raw food and 3. prepared in a juicer. Each test was performed two weeks apart. Plasma ORAC was measured before consumption and after 30 and 60 minutes. The comparison of mean peak values to fasting values showed an increase in plasma ORAC, in (mu)moleTE/L of 114 for the high-power blender, 48.3 for the raw food, and 71 for the juicer. The results of this study suggest that certain parts of fruits, usually not consumed or, if consumed, not digestible, can contribute to a higher intake of antioxidants if prepared in a way to make the antioxidants of these parts digestible.


Now, my thoughts...

Basically, what this is saying is that if you normally do not consume parts of some foods (seeds, stems, peels, cores, etc) and blend them up in a high powered blender with the rest of the fruit, you will be able to absorb some of the nutrients that are in these parts. And, that blending them up in a high power blender is more effective in accomplishing this then eating these parts raw. And that juicing them is more effective for this then eating them raw, but not as effective as pureeing them in a high powered blender.

1) These results are common sense. We know that pureeing and blending up food may increase absorption of some nutrients. However, this is not always a good thing (ie, in regard to sugar).

2) instead or trying to include parts I woud not normally eat, I would just rather include more of the parts I do like.

3) this does not in anyway speak specifically to the ability of the vita mix to outperform any other blender, as no other blender was used in comparison.

4) this does not in anyway say that absorbing more of these nutrients results in any improvement in health and/or longevity.

5) since these results has never been peer reviewed and formally published, it really has no weight in the science and medical literature/field. It is as they do not exist.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

I am starting to think that I should stay away from all high priced items claiming to promote better health. I now see that the body has the ability to do this work all by itself.

Thanks!



Clearly, supplemental fibers, like Metamucil have been shown to be effective, so there is some benefit. But mostly, this benefit is in people who have fiber poor diets.

Fiber woks best in its intact form in the intact food. An apple has less of an effect on blood sugar and insulin, then blended apples (applesauce) and an apple has a higher satiety than blended apples.

In regard to nutrient content of food today was prior years, if there isvany reduction in nutrient content, it is minimal and not the main cause of why people eat nutrient poor diets.

The main reason people eat nutrient poor diets is they eat highly refined and processed foods. Switching to unrefined unprocessed foods, and more whole natural foods, like fruit, veggies, starchy veggies, legumes, is the solution.

I also know of no evidence showing that we need to "optimize' or "increase" the absorption of the nutrients in these natural unprocessed unrefined foods, to have better health outcomes.

In Health
Jeff

I have known of Dr. McDougall for over 20 years. Before there were boards like this, the only way to learn about his diet was to read his books. There was never any confusion. Whole grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes. No added fat, no avacados, no nuts. Keep your food as unprocessed as possible. Smoothies were never a part of his dietary recommendations. It was always his advice that the more we process a food, the more likely it is to be overconsumed and add weight. The confusion does not come from Dr. McDougall or Jeff Novick. The confusion comes from people who try to follow advice from any number of different sources and then become annoyed that Dr. McDougall's advice (which has not changed in 20 or more years) conflicts with the dietary model they have constructed for themselves by relying on all kinds of information they have picked and chosen from all over the internet. I read all kinds of posts from people who complain they are not losing weight even though they are "following McDougall's plan". Then they go on to talk about the nuts they eat, the dried fruit they consume, the processed cereals with soy milk, etc. If your confused, it's because you are trying to fashion a diet that suits you and includes as many of your favorite foods as possible. The McDougall recommendations are very simple. They only become confusing when people try and integrate many diets into one to create something that lets them eat as widely as possible. What you're doing may be vegan, however, what I read on these boards often goes far astray from the McDougall diet I've been reading about all these years.

Hi,

In regard to fiber content there is little difference, if they are prepared similarly.

In regard to the other issues, I appreciate what you posted and the "press release" but it doesn't address, or answer the issues I raised...

1) Can you show me any actual peer reviewed published data that shows that nutrient content in food today is lower.

2) If I grow apples and take 20 apples from one tree and compare them, I will see nutritional variations, sometimes as much as mentioned in the press release above. Even just from one tree. Many things effect nutritional content including soil, water, moisture, sun exposure, temperature, geography etc. I posted studies in the threads on organic showing this that there was more variation within the groups then between the groups, because of the above issues. We will always see difference, what we have to show is that these differences are relevant to our health.

Also, the food we consume today (no matter where you live) comes from many different areas, from many different soils, water, sun exposure, geography, temperature etc. This greatly diminishes the change of any one single nutrient being low.

3) Even if, you could show that some produce has lower values, can you show me any peer reviewed published evidence that the main reason people are obese and or sick and dying today from the major causes of death (CVD, HTN, DB, Cancers, etc) is due to lower quality food that we grow? Can you show me the evidence of the deficiency diseases that Americans are suffering from today? I can show you study after study showing the main problem is not eating enough fresh produce, regardless if it grown conventionally or not.

(NOTE: Remember, the data on the long lived Okinawans showed their diets were low in certain nutrients and they did show signs and symptoms of these lower levels, but they were still the longest lived healthiest people. People are dying of nutritional excess not deficiencies.)

4) Why is it when we take people who are suffering from the above known killers (CVD, HTN, DB, Cancers, etc) and put them on a plant based diet today, without juicing, blending or supplementing, we can not only stop the progression of these diseases but in many cases actually reverse and keep them that way for 3, 5, 20, 25 years as evidenced by published data? How is this possible if the food is so nutrient depleted?

4) Can you post any peer reviewed published evidence comparing someone on a Mcdougall (or Fuhrman) type diet to someone on the exact same diet but uses blended foods to increase absorption, and does better?

5) I have posted many dietary analysis here, as have many others, all using the current USDA SR 20 database which is based on current analysis of current produce. Using current analysis of current foods, we easily surpass every single known nutrient by 200-500% on average, including the few mentioned in the above press release. So, even if the food does have some lower values, it is not lower enough to compromise what we need.

6) So far, most all trials on supplementing current diets to with additional Vit and/or minerals to improve health outcomes, have failed to show improved outcomes, and many, have shown harm. This includes Vit C, Vit E, Vit A, Beta Carotene, etc

The only exception is folate in women of child bearing ages whose diets are deficient on folate (which is from not eating enough greens and beans, not from deficient greens and beans).

The only other nutrient that is truly of a concern in the USA of being low right now is Vitamin D, which comes from the Sun, not food.

It is a great theory but has no real evidence to support it and may actually lead us down a path that has us engaging in and focusing on behaviors that are just not necessary or proven to be of benefit.

Most of the time, if we follow this theory, we end up taking lots of unnecessary and potential harmful supplements and/or spending lots of time and money on and using expensive and unnecessary juicers, blenders, sprouters etc etc. The potential problem with this is that it may take out attention and focus of off known beneficial behaviors.

I have no problem if anyone wants to engage in such behaviors (juicing, blending, sprouting, etc). I just do not know of any convincing evidence that it is necessary, let alone helpful.



I agree. But shouldn't we focus most of our attention on applying and implementing what we already know works? The problem I see, is most people put all their "apples" in the one basket of applying unproven theories based on misinformation (most of it is advertising and marketing cleverly disguised as health information) and put little energy into doing what we know really works.

In Health
Jeff

That's the way to do it! Plain and simple as the truth.