I tell you a real situation: Some years ago, I was chatting with a friend, when she looked at me very serious and said: I am not be able to lose weight! My doctor says that vegetables fattens me and the worst thing is that I love it! In that moment, those words seemed so absurd that I stayed quiet. Today, almost 20 years later, I have understood that my friend (a clear visionary) was speaking about genomic nutrition o personalized nutrition.
As we know, in the studies of dietary intervention, the results are the average value of all individual who have participated in the study. But, what would we find out if the results would be analyzed individually? In some people, a change in dietwouldn´t feel any effect (hypo-responders), others would feel a medium effect (normo-responders) and others would feel an effect greater than expected (hyper-responders).
During the last decades, we have passed from believing that diet produces the same effect in all individuals to accept that changes in diet are partly caused by the inter-individual differences in the human genome.
And that is precisely what we have lived in projects about “health food” developed in CARTIF. If we look back, we have more than 20 years designing functional foods and even collaborating in intervention studies in humans with the objective of verifying its effectiveness.
The project CENIT HIGEA (2007-2010) was undoubtedly the most important in the design of food with beneficial effects on health. In this project we feel ourselves as Dr. Brand on “interstellar: we were missing variables to solve optimally our trials of intervention.” We had not contemplated that the response to food varies depending on the specific characteristics of each person!
In fact, in a trial of intervention realized in HIGEA, we got that the consumption of a bar enriched in Omega-3 only produced an improvement in the lipid profile and the inflammatory pattern in men but not in women who participated in the study.
With these antecedents, in the year 2014 we began to work in the Project PRIMICIA. As its name suggests, for the first time, we get ingredients and healthy food (cookies, juices, jams, and pasta) bearing in mind the genetic profile of the population. It is necessary to mention that although the advances in the knowledge and technologies developed about of the human genome have been spectacular during the last years, the nutritional genomic is still a recent discipline and there is some confusion.
The project PRIMICIA is just the beginning in the industrial development of effective foodto improve the health of people in a personalized way. I propose complete the famous phrase “You are what you eat” saying: “You are what you eat because this determines which genes are expressed” and as I also have the gene “mother”, I would add: “so be careful!”
The newly closed Rio 2016 Olympic Games are still in our minds, means of communication and webs, and we are wondering some questions such as how the diet is for athletes? what kind of products they consume? Are they suitable for any athlete with less level?
After 14 years of discussion, the European Commission published last June the highly anticipated report on food intended for sportspeople. The purpose of this report was determine whether the food for sportspeople are special food (and therefore, if it would be necessary a specific provisions) or simply consider them as a food used commonly.
This report builds upon a market study on food intended for athletes carried out by the Food Chain Evaluation Consortium (FCEC). The number of sport products present in the market can be estimated, on the basis of the innovation rate at EU level, to between approximately 20,000 and 30.000. The FCEC Study identified the following three categories of sport food:
1.Isotonic drinks (61 %) 2.Protein-based products for muscle strengthening, building and post exercise recovery (26 %). 3. Products to increase energy and performance and continuous complementary products for athletes (13 %).
Sport food is not defined in EU legislation. For the purpose of this report, the study considered as “sportspeople” those people who practice sport once a week or more. Also the definition of “sportspeople” included the requirement to consume at least a sports food in the last year.
Finally, the Commission concluded that there is no necessity for specific provisions for food intended for sportspeople. After 20 July 2016, a sport food will be considered under horizontal rules of food law as a food supplement (accordance with Directive 2002/46/CE) or, as a fortified food (accordance with Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 and Regulation (EU) Nº 1169/2011). The arguments for this decision are:
• People who carry out sport activities hardly can be characterized as a specific vulnerable group of consumers. • Sometimes, it is very difficult to understand whether a specific product has to be considered as a food intended for particular nutritional uses by sportsmen or a food for normal consumption fortified in certain nutrients with a health claim targeting sportspeople. • The horizontal rules of food law provide the necessary safeguards for these products in terms of food safety, food composition, consumer information and legal certainty.
Currently, there are already some authorized healthy claims aims at sportspeople (see next table). Relevant claims for sportspeople on caffeine are under discussion. On the other hand, despite the fact that EFSA regarded the beneficial effect of sodium, there is not authorization to say ‘high in sodium’, because it is not beneficial for everybody.
Operators are clearly divided on the question whether specific legislation is necessary for sports food or whether sports food should be legislated by horizontal rules of food law.
An industry group is worried because they think the innovation of these products is limited. But, you know, “you can´t please everybody”.
‘And because I do not like dry steaks, mom, take a little sauce and flavor’. As this Spanish rumba says, in our country we use ‘salt-cellar’, in the full sense of the word. In fact, we consume 9,8 g of salt daily, which is almost twice the recommended amount. But we are not the only ones. Americans follow us closely eating an average of 8,5 g every day. World Health Organization (WHO) admits that we have a serious global problem, establishing salt reduction as a priority measure in preventing cardiovascular disease.
Each gram of common salt (sodium chloride or NaCl) provides us approximately 0,6 g of chlorine (Cl) and 0,4 g of sodium. Sodium, although is needed in small quantities, is clearly ‘the bad guy’. Sodium excess causes fluid retention (weight increase), heart problems and hypertension. WHO suggests that the quantity of salt that an adult should consume daily is 5 g, equivalent to approximately 2 g of sodium. Attention! 5 g is only a little teaspoon or a thimble.
We just have to look at the following table elaborated from the data about the salt content of a group of foodsof the ‘Plan Cuidate+’, created by the Agencia Española de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición (AESAN). So if we get four ham slices, we have made the day as far as salt is concerned. And if we eat it in a refrigerated sandwich, I do not think more… I just hope that WHO has calculated well because, according with them, it seems very easy to overcome the recommend intake daily. In addition, anyone dares to say to WHO something about the salt of a ham sandwich, because I imagine they would say: and who tells you to eat ham? Do not you know our recommendations about the processed meat consumption?
We are going to suppose that we try to reduce our salt consumption. In this case, it is not too easy, because the 72% of our salt consumption comes from processed food (prepared meals, fast food, snacks, cheese, cereals, etc.). This is what is known as ‘hidden salt’, and here is where manufacturers have to make an effort. In this sense, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in The United States of America is developing a guide in order to promote, voluntarily, the reformulation and development of new products reduced in sodium. To do this, from 2 June to 31 August, we can send them comments about sodium reduction
Little by little, our palate should get used to a less salty taste. Surely, everyone has seen that salty foods are able to modify our behavior: they are a generator of appetite and they stimulate our intake. We just have to eat pipes with salt and without salt. You can’t stop to eat the bag with salt until you finish it. (It is not an experiment with scientific rigor, but it serves to get an idea).
Every day in the supermarket, we have to face the decision to buy one product or another. Unconsciously, and according to experts, we dedicate about 6 seconds to choose. If we only look on nutritional aspects, manufacturers must be able to communicate that their products offer advantages in relation to others. Thus, by nutrition labeling, manufacturers inform us about nutrients that a food gives us (nutrition claims) and even gives us information about possible health effects (health claims).
From the consumers’ point of view, nutrition labelingwould allow to choose a product knowingly, favoring even some changes in their eating behavior. Until now, at European level, some models for nutritional information have been designed so that information arrive easily to consumers, such as the use of Guideline Daily Amount (GDA), the nutritional traffic light, different symbols or health logos, etc. However, it does not seem that we are getting it, because some labeling studies continue showing that this information is difficult to understand for almost the 44% of people.
Having in mind that in the UK more than two thirds of the population is overweight or obese, the Royal Society for Public Health insists on the urgent necessity to propose innovative measures, relating to the labeling, able not only to provide information, but to change the consumer behavior. And for this, they propose to inform about the calories of food from a totally different perspective. So, instead of indicating the calories of a food, the product provides us the information about the necessary physical activity indicated to spend those calories, it means ‘equivalent activity’.
At the beginning, I have to admit that I like this labeling proposal, because it offers an easy reference and understandable for all, and it encourages to think about the necessary balance between calories consumed and those that are spent. But the best thing is that this initiative uses positive reinforcement, so that encourages us to get started in physical activity rather than stop eating certain foods. In this way, I believe that it could be possible to influence in the eating behavior of consumer and their lifestyle. I think that now the message that my brain receives will be: ‘you will burn these sweet biscuits with the sweat of your brow’, instead of ‘if you eat these biscuits, they will live in your body forever’.
Other proposal for labeling, which comes from the same British company, is based on including photos with the amount of sugar or salt that a food carries. Of course, the impact of reading that you are ‘eating’ 60 grams of sugar with a drink is not the same as watching equivalent to 15 sugar cubes. Is it?
I want to call these brilliant and wonderful ideas of labeling ‘ideas of clear labeling’, and I hope to collect more of them in order to tell them us in this blog.
‘Did you know that cocoa increases mental activity? We are going to discover and prove scientifically the incredible power of what we have in the pantry’.
With these words, the Spanish cooker Alberto Chicote started ‘Superfoods’, his special TV program, on March28. When it started, I said to myself: I won’t miss it! I have to admit that I had some uncomfortable moments, and I thought: Oh my god! They are getting on top!
According to the ratings, the program was a success. And, on the one hand, I am glad because it shows the Spanish interest in eating in a healthy way (beyond football or ‘big brother’). Secondly, I am glad because it evidences the huge potential of television to increase the nutrition knowledge.
We must learn how to communicate science in an educational and funny way (as Chicote), but always under the strict sight of scientific evidences. After living a few crazy years proclaiming the miraculous effects of food, the publication of Regulation (EC) 1924/2006, related to nutrition declarations and health properties of food, the scene has changed radically, prohibiting attribute to any food a beneficial effect without scientific basis and without being expressly authorized.
In this case, I dedicate today’s post to check briefly the science behind the effects that the program attributed to the 10 ‘Superfoods’. Chicote ensured that:
‘The extra virgin olive oil strengthens bones and eliminates fats’. ‘Cocoa strengthens teeth and streamlines the mind’. ‘Blue fish is good against stresses’. ‘Coffee prevents fatigue driving’. ‘Oranges slow aging’. ‘Pasta increases athletic performance’. ‘The tomato prevents sunburn’. ‘Broccoli protects your eyesight of the sun’. ‘Legumes reduce cholesterol’.
On the one hand, the following table lists the so-called ‘superfoods’ and their benefits reported on television. And on the other hand, it includes the active ingredients that provide these foods, the beneficial effects scientifically accepted by the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and it today is authorized to inform European consumers about the benefits.
Indeed, there is scientific evidence that selected foods have certain beneficial effects. However, the word ‘Superfood’ is not the right word, because it could give the idea that they are ‘miraculous’, and then we start doing strange things such as ‘broccoli diet’ or eating 2kg of oranges every day in order to get eternal youth.
Looking at the table, we can conclude that:
It is very curious that this program shows some effects of these foods which do not count with the scientific evidences, instead of the recognized healthy effects.
In the case of pulses, because of their phystosterols contents, we could admit that ‘they help to maintain normal cholesterol levels’, but not ‘reduce cholesterol’.
Scientifically, effects on our concentration related to the caffeine consume are demonstrated. However, Europe is not authorized to publicize these effects to avoid excessive consumption of coffee or caffeinated beverages. For more information of caffeine, you can check the following EFSA’s poster.
