As noted earlier, obesity is one of
the underlying causes of insulin resistance.3 The adipocyte is an active
metabolic and endocrine organ, capable of producing several factors,
referred to as adipocytokines or adipokines. With the increase in fat
mass, several adipose-related factors are upregulated and may affect
local and distant inflammatory processes, including atherothrombosis.
However, adiponectin, the most abundant known factor, is downregulated
with increase in fat mass. This reduction in adiponectin along with the
upregulation of otherfactors may result in increased inflammation and
thrombotic tendency (Figure 1).4 Adiponectin is initially synthesized as
a monomer, but is later secreted and circulated in the plasma as
complex isoforms. In humans, the two majorly separated isomeric forms
are available; low molecular weight (LMW) and high molecular weight
(HMW) adiponectin.5
Several in vitro and in vivo studies have stated
that blood levels of adiponectin are low in individuals with Type 2
diabetes, insulin resistance, coronary heart disease and other features
of metabolic syndrome.5,6 Based on the above properties, adiponectin
appears to be a major modulator of insulin action and its levels in Type
2 diabetes. It also seems to possess insulin-sensitizing,
antiinflammatory properties and antiatherogenic properties.
Hence,
adiponectin is found to be a promising target for managing insulin
resistance, obesity and Type 2 diabetes.7 This was also proved in a
study by Matasuzawa et al., wherein the plasma levels of adiponectin
strongly correlated with insulin sensitivity evaluated as glucose
disposal rates.
Do
you remember the “hygiene hypothesis” of the late 1990s? It theorized
that humans had so over-sanitized their environment with disinfectants
and hand cleansers, our immune systems were no longer doing their jobs.
So many consumer products like toothpaste, hand and dish soap, laundry
detergents and even clothes now include antibiotics, said the theory, we
seldom encounter the “bad” germs our immune systems are supposed to
recognize and fight.
Since the hygiene hypothesis
surfaced, there is growing evidence of its truth. In fact the theory
that certain medical conditions, especially autoimmune ones, may be
caused by a changing or declining bacterial environment in the human gut
is gaining momentum and now called the “disappearing microbiota
hypothesis.”
The bacteria in our gut, collectively
called our microbiome, is a huge, ever-changing universe of billions of
microbes. Each person’s intestinal ecosystem is so individualized and
such a reflection of his unique inner and outer environments, “gut
microbiota may even be considered as another vital human organ,” says one scientific paper. The microbiome has also been called a second genome and even a second brain.
Most
people know that taking antibiotics can change their microbiome by
killing off the “good” bacteria with the bad. That’s why antibiotics can
cause diarrhea and many clinicians recommend taking probiotics with
them. But what scientists are just beginning to learn is microbiomes are
also affected by their outside environment including influences like house dust and even aerosolized matter when
a toilet is flushed. They are also learning that gut bacteria is highly
adaptive and one person’s gut bacteria will take root and flourish in
another’s intestines. This explains the growing popularity of “fecal
transplants” (yes, you read that right) between people who have been
depleted of “good” bacteria and donors with healthy populations of
microbes in their intestines.
Still,
the most astounding research that is developing around the microbiome
is the ability of our gut bacteria to affect our brain and “influence
our mood and temperament,” says food expertMichael
Pollan. “If you transplant the gut microbiota of relaxed and
adventurous mice into the guts of timid and anxious mice they become
less stressed and more adventurous.”
We need to look past the colours, pictures and cleverly crafted claims. Art Allianz/Shutterstock
If you’re confused by food labels, you’re not alone. But
don’t hold your breath for an at-a-glance food labelling system that
tells you how much salt, fat and sugar each product contains.
Australia’s proposed “health star rating” labelling scheme was put on hold in February, following pressure from the food industry. And it’s unclear whether the scheme will go ahead.
Marketers use a variety of tricks to make foods seem healthier and more appealing than their competitors, particularly when it comes to products aimed at children.
One of the most powerful advertising tools a food manufacturer has is
the packaging, as it’s what we look at immediately before deciding which
food to purchase.
Next time you’re shopping for food, look out for these seven common labelling tricks:
The colour of food packaging can influence our perceptions of how healthy a food is.
A recent study
found consumers’ perceptions of two identical chocolate bars were
influenced by the colour of the nutrition label; despite the identical
calorie information, people perceived the one with the green label to be healthier.
Another tool of savvy food marketers is the use of “ticks” and
“seals” that we subconsciously process as indicating that the product
has met some form of certification criteria.
A recent study found that nutrition seals on unhealthy food products increased perceptions of healthiness
among restrained eaters. And a study with parents of toddlers found 20%
of parents identified the presence of a quality seal as one of the
reasons for their purchase of toddler formula rather than cow’s milk.
Food packaging often contains words that imply the food contains
certain ingredients, or has been prepared in a way, that makes it
healthier (or at least better than similar foods).
But many of the words – such as “healthy” or “natural” – have no legal or formal meaning. While the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Code regulates the use of specific health and nutrient content claims, it doesn’t regulate or define these loose terms.
“Weasel claims”
describe modifiers that negate the claims that follow them. This allows
manufacturers to avoid allegations of breaching advertising or labelling
regulations, while being such a commonly used word that it is
overlooked by the consumer.
For example, Activia “can” help to reduce digestive discomfort - but
did you read the fine print? It “can” help if you eat it twice a day and
“… as part of a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle”.
Similarly, Berri Super Juice contains antioxidants which “help” fight
free radicals (but so does whole fruit, which also contains more
fibre).
Unfinished claims
tell us the product is better than something – but not better than
what. In food labelling, we really have to hunt for the “what”.
Fountain’s Smart Tomato Sauce still contains 114mg of salt per
serving, while the brand’s regular tomato sauce contains 186mg (more
than several other brands).
The Heart Foundation defines low-salt foods
as those with less than 120mg per 100g; Fountain’s Smart tomato sauce
has 410mg per 100ml. It does, however, have less sugar than many of its
competitors.
So, if you are trying to reduce your sugar intake it may be a good
choice, but if you are trying to reduce your sodium intake, look for one
of the low-salt varieties and read the label very carefully (reduced is
rarely synonymous with low).
Smiths' Thinly Cut potato chips contain 75% less fat than “chips cooked in 100% Palmolein Oil”. But they don’t contain less fat than Original Thins, Kettle, or most other brands on the market.
It’s also worth taking a close look at the recommended serving size –
in both cases the nutrition information is based on a 27g serving, but
Smiths' “single serve” pack is 45g (15.7g fat; one-fifth of an average
adult’s recommended daily intake, or RDI).
A common strategy is to list a claim that is, in itself, completely
true – but to list it in a way that suggests that this product is unique
or unusual (when in reality it is no different to most foods in that
category).
“All natural” and “no artificial colours and flavours” are appealing
features for parents looking for snacks for their children. But most
standard cheeses (including many packaged products such as cheese
slices) also contain no artificial colours of flavours.
This is not to suggest that Bega Stringers are a bad product or that
you shouldn’t buy them – just that you may want to think about the cost
per serve compared to other cheeses that are equally healthy.
Like most lolly snakes, Starburst snakes are “99% fat free”. The old adage of “salt-sugar-fat” holds here; products that are low (or absent) in one are typically very high in another. In the case of lollies, it’s sugar.
As with the potato chips above, serving size is important. Those of
us who can’t resist more than one snake might be surprised to realise
that if we ate half the bag, we would have consumed two-thirds of our
daily sugar intake (although we can’t blame the pack labelling for
that!).
Sun-Rice Naturally Low GI White Rice illustrates this use of
technically correct claims. Let’s start with “cholesterol free” – this
is totally true, but all rice is cholesterol free.
The pack also states in very large, bright blue letters that it is
“Low GI”. In much smaller letters that almost disappear against the
colour of the package is the word “naturally”. This use of different
colours to attract, or not attract, attention is a common marketing
technique.
The product is indeed low GI, at 54 it is just below the cut-off of less than 55.
But the “naturally” refers to the fact that what makes it low GI is the
use of basmati rice rather than another variety, and other brands’
basmati rice would have a similar GI.
Berri Super Juice proudly, and truthfully, claims it “contains no
added sugar”. You may conclude from this that the sugar content is low,
but a closer look at the nutrition information label may surprise you – a
200ml serve of this super juice contains 25.8g of sugar (29% of your
recommended daily allowance).
While contentious, some have even suggested that there is a link between fruit juice and both obesity and metabolic disease, particularly for children. A better (and cheaper) way of obtaining the fruit polyphenols is to eat fruit.
Healthy sounding words are not only used as “claims” but are often
used as brand names. This first struck me when I was looking for a snack
at my local gym and noticed the “Healthy Cookies” on display; they had
more sugar, more fat and less fibre than all of the others on sale
(Healthy Cookies was the brand name).
Brand names are often seen as a key descriptor of the nature of the
product. Research has found that people rate food as healthy or
unhealthy based on pre-existing perceptions of the healthiness of a product category or descriptor, particularly among those who are watching their diet, and may thus select the unhealthier option based on its name or product category.
If, for example, you’re watching your weight, you may be attracted to
the Go Natural Gluten Free Fruit & Nut Delight bar, assuming that
it will be a healthier choice than a candy bar. But you might be
surprised to note that it contains 932 kJ (11.0% of your RDI) and a
whopping 13.6g of fat (10% of your RDI).
A 53g Mars bar contains slightly more calories (1020kJ) but a lot
less fat (9.1g), although the Go Natural bar could argue for “healthier”
fat given the 40% nut content.
So, can we really distinguish between healthy and unhealthy foods by looking at the wrappers?
The healthiest wrappers are made by nature, from the simple ones that
can be eaten after washing (like apples and carrots) to those that need
some disposal (like a banana or a fresh corn cob).
If you are buying your food wrapped in plastic or paper, it’s a
little more complex. We need to see past the colours, pictures and
cleverly-crafted claims and take a careful look at the ingredients and
nutrition panel.
