New Evidence that Canola (Rapeseed) Oil is Better than Olive Oil for Regulating Lipid and Inflammatory Markers in Obese Men

In a previous post I showed that Canola Oil was developed without Genetic Engineering (biotechnology; GMO):
http://honestnutrition.blogspot.com/2013/03/canola-oil-was-developed-without-gmo.html

In another post, I showed that canola oil had superior results to Olive Oil in comparisons of effects on cardiovascular health markers both in animal and human studies:
http://honestnutrition.blogspot.com/2013/05/is-canola-oil-better-than-olive-oil-for.html

Now there is another study comparing the two oils. In that report, Rapeseed (Canola) Oil improved liver Health and inflammatory markers in obese men better than olive oil did. Consuming the canola oil resulted in improvements over consuming olive oil in a number of key markers in those men:

* Higher levels of serum omega-3 fatty acids
* Lower levels of LDL and total cholesterol
* Lower levels of serum AST (aspartate aminotransferase); a liver enzyme that detects liver damage and is a risk factor for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)
* Reduction of the pro-inflammatory marker IL-6
* Indications of a potential long-term protective effect (gene expression resulting in a hormetic response) on inflammatory cytokines in adipose tissues

As before, the superior results from canola over olive oil are attributed to its higher omega-3 and lower omega-6 fatty acid content compared to olive oil. Don't think that olive oil is unhealthy; it's just that there is a myth that all canola oil is unhealthy, which repeatedly has been debunked by studies such as this latest one.

I would still advise against using Genetically Engineered (GMO) canola due to potential side effects such as the potential for unexpected new allergens and toxins, and the lack of long-term animal feeding studies actually proving safety. Since there is no way to track human reactions to GMO foods in North America due to a lack of will to impose documentation and labeling, we have no way to determine if the recent historical use supports their safety or risks. Because of the unscientific introduction of GMO foods and our current inability to pinpoint whether or not allergic or toxic reactions are occurring with their use, non-GMO (including organic) canola is the recommended type I suggest if you are considering using canola/rapeseed oil.


http://www.naturalhealthresearch.org/rapeseedcanola-oil-improves-liver-health-and-inflammation-levels-in-obese-men/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=25403327

The Truth About Fructose Dangers

Pure crystalline fructose is an alternative natural sweetener that has long been used in the natural products industry as a common sugar substitute. Its major claim to fame is that in the short term fructose raises blood sugar far less than sucrose, the primary sugar found in white sugar that is made from sugar cane or sugar beets. Crystalline fructose should not be confused with the synthesized liquid sweetener called high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which is made by a different process and is a mixture of roughly half fructose and half glucose (dextrose) that is widely used in the beverage and processed food industries. Unlike HFCS, fructose is a naturally occurring sugar made by plant photosynthesis that is a primary sugar in many healthy fruits. Being about 50% sweeter than sucrose, fructose can also be used more sparingly in recipes to cut their caloric intake by about 1/3.

Because of the unique challenges of formulating natural products without the use of artificial sweeteners or flavorings, sometimes a small amount of fructose is the best match for the flavorings in a product. For example, liquid vitamin B-12 has a distinct flavor profile and other sweeteners do not mask it quite as well as fructose can. Often a mixture of sweeteners may be used to create a “mouth feel” that is acceptable to consumers, who often use white sugar as their sensory standard for sweeteners. While some people may intellectually prefer other sweeteners or even white sugar, in sensory tests the fructose mixture often gets higher marks from consumers, and this leads to high compliance with recommended label uses.

I appreciate the concerns over the use of fructose. It has certainly been abused in the Western diet, especially in the form of HFCS. Americans' fructose consumption on average has tripled over the past century. But increased consumption of fruit juice and sucrose itself also are implicated in our national health decline; certainly not fructose alone, nor fructose in low doses.

According to Dr. Lustig*, an authority on fructose metabolism, human studies have not consistently shown the effect of fructose to induce insulin resistance; a negative effect reported in some animal and preliminary human studies related to altered liver metabolism. Dr. Lustig also admits that not all human studies show a negative effect of fructose on liver health or metabolic syndrome. There appear to be certain individual factors involved that make such effects somewhat idiosyncratic. Many of the studies cited are cell studies, animal studies giving high doses of fructose to mutant mice, or human studies where consumption of a lot of soft drinks were involved that provided a large number of calories comprising an unhealthy proportion (25% or more) of total daily caloric intake (about 500 calories as fructose every day). Contrast this with a healthy nutritional product that provides only a few calories, a very low percent versus those unhealthy diets!

Dr. Lustig notes that "In the hypocaloric (eg, starvation) state, fructose is as beneficial as glucose"; while also noting it has ill effects in the "hypercaloric state". He also discusses how a small amount of ethanol, a substance with similar liver effects to high fructose diets, is actually health-promoting while large amounts have the opposite effect. This reinforces that the ability of substances to elicit ill effects on the liver are typically dose dependent and require larger-than-normal amounts. In effect, 'the dose makes the poison;' as has been noted for many substances throughout history.

Dr. Lustig specifically cites three what he calls "antidotes" to the negative hepatic (liver) effects of fructose:

1. reduce the amount consumed

2. exercise

3. increase fiber intake.

So, upon reviewing these facts, the consumption of a small amount of fructose is unlikely to be harmful to the general public. Additionally, consumption of reasonable amounts may also be quite harmless if the person gets enough fiber and/or exercise. And the accepted fact that fructose does not directly raise blood glucose still gives it some short term advantages over certain other sweeteners for many people, if consumed at appropriate levels. Faster acting sugars that are higher on the Glycemic Index like glucose (which represents close to half of the sugar content of HFCS) would more immediately impact one's blood sugar, with chronic overuse eventually leading to insufficient/reduced insulin sensitivity (increased insulin resistance) that is associated with a loss of blood sugar control. Higher Glycemic sugars would affect this blood glucose control system much faster than an equivalent amount of pure fructose. And a lack of insulin sensitivity also indicates a problem in properly absorbing and recycling vitamin C in many of our body's cells; especially immune, muscle, and bone cells.

There are a variety of natural sweeteners to fit into most individuals' personalized dietary regime; but I do not promote the indiscriminate use of any sweetener, especially refined or synthetic ones. People like to have choices and will select sweeteners according to their own taste and health issues. For example, some avoid barley malt because of gluten sensitivity or certain other sweeteners because of corn allergies. People on limited diets need to scrutinize the available sweeteners and select what seems right for their own situation. But it's clear that a small amount of almost any natural sweetener, say to sweeten a cup of tea, does not seem to have any demonstrable health risk. For overly large amounts, the potential risks do increase. But a demonstrated risk level typically represents consumption of several hundred calories a day of refined sugars, including fructose, and it obviously is unwise to take in most of our daily carbohydrates in the form of refined sugars of any kind.

Consumption of small amounts of pure crystalline fructose simply doesn’t have a measureable effect on health and doesn’t need to be avoided. It’s the fructose consumed in large quantities in processed foods and beverages, where it comprises perhaps the major source of carbohydrates in the modern diet, that is the real health concern.

* Lustig RH. Fructose: metabolic, hedonic, and societal parallels with ethanol. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010 Sep;110(9):1307-21. PubMed PMID: 20800122.

Detoxification

Detoxification By Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA The EPA tracks about 650 toxic chemicals used in 23,600 facilities in the US. The agency reports that about half of the 4.24 billion pounds of these toxic chemicals are annually released into the air, ground or water. These include chemicals from the mining, smelting and power generation industries, paper production, electronic equipment manufacturing, plastics, pesticides, etc. While the highest release of chemicals is associated with mining and power production, other industries release problematic chemicals into the environment on a daily basis, all over our country. Certain groups are most at risk (e.g., children, pregnant and nursing women, the elderly). I would also add that people with multiple chemical exposures or even a single toxic level of exposure can develop a hyper-sensitivity to chemicals that can be debilitating. This condition is often called multiple chemical sensitivity. Of course, there is an increase in exposures as our exposure to so many chemicals uses up key nutrients and can overload the body’s ability to detoxify these toxic “insults” to the liver and other body systems. As our need for key nutrients and optimal detoxification processes grows during repeated, chronic exposures, our bodies may fail to keep pace and the levels of toxins can accumulate in our body. The results can be subtle (acne, headaches, persistent “colds”) or extreme (hair or tooth loss, chronic fatigue, pain). We see inflammatory-related conditions increasing, such as liver problems, cardiovascular issues, joint degradation and brain degeneration. While it is true that these conditions are associated with aging, it is also true that aging relates to the body’s inability to properly remove toxins and distribute nutrients to all of its tissues. Inflammatory chemicals can be either the original chemical or a biochemical metabolite that is produced in the body as a temporary step in neutralizing and removing the chemical. If inadequate nutrient stores do not allow the detoxification to complete - and often heroic levels of nutrients far above the RDI’s are required in these situations – then the body still will have a burden of toxic, inflammatory chemicals to contend with. The old adage is to reduce the exposure and increase the nutrients in order to allow the body to clear these toxins in its usual manner. Everything that lowers exposure, even removing shoes when entering a house or using appropriate filters for air ducts, may be helpful in reducing airborne toxins. But it is also important to reduce exposures through varied sources such as medications, non-organic food and the environment as best we can. Antioxidants, including sulfur-containing substances, are the key to detoxification. Methylation, sulfation and antioxidant reduction are some detoxification techniques used by the liver, especially. The liver utilizes these methods to render toxins inert enough to allow removal through the bile or the urine. Methylation can be enhanced by methyl donor nutrients, such as choline, TMG, DMG and SAMe. Sulfation is done with MSM, sulfur from plants (garlic, onions, broccoli, kale) or sulfur-containing proteins (methionine, cysteine, glutathione). Antioxidants include Vitamin C, alpha lipoic acid, etc. Any sources of these nutrients would be beneficial to aiding the body’s natural detoxification systems. One problem is that people often fear to use adequate, high levels of these nutrients, such as taking Vitamin C up to bowel tolerance levels. Some natural substances that enhance/support detoxification include Zinc, Selenium, Copper, Manganese, Sodium Alginate, Chlorella, Bladderwrack, MSM, Beet Root, Red Clover, Dandelion Root, Oregon Grape Root, and Milk Thistle Extract. Another new product is a broccoli seed concentrate called “sgs™”, which is backed by numerous clinical studies at Johns Hopkins regarding its ability to enhance natural detoxification. Adequate fiber is also important in moving the waste quickly through the colon to help remove toxins while avoiding exposure to toxins from the waste or from inappropriate microbes that fester in an unhealthy colon. Probiotics are important, especially bifidobacteria (Bifidus). Drinking adequate amounts of clean, filtered water is another must. Eating organic whenever possible is important, avoiding non-organic fruits and vegetables prone to heavy chemical exposure. Detoxification is a normal bodily function, so claiming that a dietary supplement can support this function would be a legitimate “structure-function statement” authorized by federal law if the clinical documentation is available. Neil E. Levin, CCN, DANLA is a nationally certified clinical nutritionist with a Diplomate in Advanced Nutritional Laboratory Assessment. He is a professional member of the International & American Associations of Clinical Nutritionists. Neil is the nutrition education manager and a product formulator for NOW Foods, a natural food and dietary supplement manufacturer in Bloomingdale, Illinois. Neil is a member of the Scientific Council of the national Clinical Nutrition Certification Board and serves on the board of directors of the Mid-American Health Organization (MAHO), the Midwest regional affiliate of the National Products Association (formerly NNFA). Neil is routinely interviewed for articles in trade magazines serving the natural products industry and has published articles in magazines and newspapers, contributed to scientific journals and has been a guest on numerous radio shows. He has been interviewed for television news reports many times over a 33-year career. You can read some of Neil’s recent articles at his non-commercial website: http://www.honestnutrition.com/