Calorie counting in foods-Uncertainties regarding label declaration!

Why should the food industry print on the label the so called nutrition information? Those who came up with the idea of nutrition labeling were honest in their intention that such information would help the consumers to select the best foods from the market from the health point of view. But does it really happen the way it is intended to be?  Probably not! Why? The human biological system varies from person to person and the efficiency of utilizing the nutrients also will also vary. Therefore the figures printed on the food pack can at best indicate maximum efficiency without taking into consideration the individual variations or the extent of processing the food has undergone. Calorie values exemplify this paradox. The calorific value of food declared is based on the estimates arrived at through the Bomb calorie meter test where food is burned under controlled conditions to find out the calorific value. Unfortunately the human system cannot be expected to be as efficient as a bomb calorie meter with the digestion system depends on the compliment of enzymes and the microbiome that inhabit the GI tract. As a thumb rule more the food is processed or cooked more efficient is the digestion efficiency. Why this factor is important can be understood in the context of the critical role played by food calories in leading to over weight and obesity. Here is an interesting expose regarding the role of processing and cooking in calorie generation once the food is ingested and their fate within the system   . 

"Unfortunately, of course, in today's overfed and underexercised populations, nature's way is not the best way. If we want to lose weight we should challenge our instinctive desires. We should reject soft white bread in favor of rough whole wheat breads, processed cheese in favor of natural cheese, cooked vegetables in favor of raw vegetables. And to do so would be much easier if our food labels gave us some advice about how many calories we would save by eating less-processed food. So why are our nutritionist advisers mute on the topic? For decades there have been calls by distinguished committees and institutions to reform our calorie-counting system. But the calls for change have failed. The problem is a shortage of information. Researchers find it hard to predict precisely how many extra calories will be gained when our food is more highly processed. By contrast, they find it easy to show that if a food is digested completely, it will yield a specific number of calories. Our food labeling therefore faces a choice between two systems, neither of which is satisfactory. The first gives a precise number of calories but takes no account of the known effects of food processing, and therefore mismeasures what our bodies are actually harvesting from the food. The second would take account of food-processing, but without any precise numbers."

Ideally a healthy person must derive full benefit from the food he consumes and the nutrition guidelines do not make a differentiation between cooked foods and raw foods, the values of the latter being used universally in all guidelines across the world. If calorie needs are determined based on the theoretical calorie yield and if the calories contained in the diet are not absorbed, naturally the question arises whether man really needs so much calories as being recommended? Obviously consumers looking for 2000 kC from the food they consume will go by the theoretical values presented to them in the label. While a consumer eating minimally cooked or refined food will not derive the theoretical values because of the digestion inefficiency, those consuming highly processed foods will get almost 100% of the calories declared on the label. Another dimension to this paradox is that refined foods require less energy expenditure for the biological digestion system, eating minimally cooked foods calls for comparatively higher energy input by the body leaving very little for conversion to fat and consequently to weight gain. Sounds confusing? Well that is the reality and that is why health pundits universally condemn highly refined and over cooked foods because of their higher energy mobilization and fat deposition potential. No wonder consumers are realizing this "unpalatable" truth and shifting towards whole cereals and pulses and raw fruits and vegetables to avoid many life threatening health afflictions and improve the quality of life.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

SPREADING THE BREAKFAST-NEWER TRENDS

The days of jumbo breakfasts seem to be numbered if the new trend in eating becomes more and more popular. Food industry which has the pulse of the consumer most of the time appears to be sensing a change in the consumption pattern of breakfast by people and accordingly is re-calibrating the product basket to suit the consumer. There appears to be a perception among people that consuming breakfast in several sittings is much more healthy than gorging a large portion at one sitting. What is the scientific basis for this belief is not yet clear. If the current market launches are carefully scanned many established brands are reducing their pack size or the serving size so that it becomes convenient for eating spread over a period. Here is the take on this curious trend emerging in the US.

"Sometimes one breakfast isn't enough. So why not sneak in a second or a third? On-the-go Americans increasingly are consuming their morning calories over several hours instead of sitting down to devour a plate of pancakes, bacon and eggs in one sitting. The case of the morning munchies is being fueled by the belief that it's healthier to eat several smaller meals instead of three squares a day. What qualifies as a snack or a meal is a matter of perspective, of course. But food companies are rolling out smaller bites that feed the growing appetite for morning treats. General Mills, Quaker Oats and others are adding to their lineup of breakfast bars and yogurts. Sara Lee's Jimmy Dean this summer introduced mini-breakfast sandwiches. And fast-food chains like McDonald's in recent years have expanded their breakfast menus to include morning snacks like smoothies and a fruit-and-walnut pack. "It's breakfast in stages,"says Liz Sloan, president of Sloan Trends, a food industry consulting group. "They'll eat something at home, then stop at Starbucks or a convenience store for coffee and maybe a little snack." The deconstruction of breakfast is happening as more Americans eat their meals outside of the home. After all, it's easier and less time-consuming to pop a few snacks in your purse or backpack for later rather than to sit down for a prepared meal.The number of times Americans snack is expected to rise faster in the morning".

Diabetic people are always advised to spread their eating sessions in a day to prevent glucose spikes in the blood and consequent development of hyperglycemia. Nutritionists and health professionals recognize the importance of "spaced" eating for normal healthy people also so that the body can metabolize the food slowly and help to consume lesser quantities of food. This has the added advantage of preventing over eating, a major reason for developing widespread obesity in the long run. Slow eating of restricted quantities of food also known to prolong the life span to some extent. According to some scientific studies chewing the food for extended time leads to early satiety and reduced appetite thus achieving a quantum reduction in the food intake. The current trend of scaling down the serving size is a welcome development and food industry can take pride in sustaining this desirable change that will benefit the people in general.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com