NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/med/nutritio/1688

Text File | 1992-12-30 | 3.6 KB | 73 lines

Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!linus!linus.mitre.org!lossage!sdo
From: sdo@lossage (Sean D. O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Enrichment/nutrient replacement question
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (NONUSER)
Nntp-Posting-Host: lossage.mitre.org
Organization: Research Computer Facility, The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:34:59 GMT
Lines: 60

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jamie Lubin) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> Laura Kittleson <[e-mail]> writes:
>>I have read printed articles, as well as postings to this group,
>>that state or imply that "replaced" nutrients and vitamins in
>>enriched breads and cereals are not as good as what might have
>>been in the food to begin with.
>>
>>How come?
>
>As Elizabeth Schwartz & Bernie Simon have already pointed out, the extracted
>fiber is one of the biggest losses in going from whole grain to "enriched"
>products.

This I can believe.

>Elizabeth & I also already mentioned that another big factor is
>that they're not even putting back all the known nutrients (& of course can't
>put back the other "unknown" factors).

If a processed food is missing a known nutrient that's important to you, and
an unprocessed form has it, by all means get the unprocessed one.  However,
this is not always going to be the case.  As far as unknown factors go,
since they're unknown, why should we believe that they're more likely to
be good for us rather than bad?  Perhaps we're being done a favor by their
being removed.  Naturally occurring unhealthful substances are plentiful.

>Finally, Bernie pointed out that there's
>a difference between synthetic and natural vitamin E.

Yes, but as Bernie also pointed out, one of the forms is inactive, so you just
have to take twice as much if you have the DL form.  You can also buy synthetic
vitamin E with the inactive form removed, if you so desire.  The major
consideration should be cost and quality.  One problem with natural vitamin
E is that it often comes mixed with oils which can easily oxidize.

>There are differences
>in other vitamins too (e.g., vitamin C, as been shown thru chromatographic
>techniques--E. Pfeiffer, M. Justa Smith, etc.).  Basically, if you get a
>vitamin from a natural source (natural food), there are accompanying factors,
>enzymes, catalysts, etc. which enhance it.  If you were to strip all of these
>away, what you'd have left would probably only be comparable to the synthetic.

I think there's an important point missing in this whole thread.  Most of
our evidence about the healthful effects of vitamins (for example) comes
from studies in which the subjects were fed synthetic forms of vitamins.
This is partly due to cost considerations (synthetic is generally cheaper)
and partly due to to the fact that it makes it easier to isolate that
which is being studied.  I can easily imagine the case in which certain
naturally occurring co-factors inhibit or otherwise impair the effect of
certain nutrients.

I'd be interested in hearing about references in which a significant
advantage was found in using the natural form of some nutrient versus the
synthetic form.  I'm not being snide here--there may be good reason to
believe that there is a real advantage in taking certain nutrients in their
natural form (i.e., different isomers, accompanying factors, etc.).  I'd just
like to see the evidence so that I have a reasonable basis for making a
judgement.

Sean