Organ Meat: Part of a Nutritious Diet?

One of the funniest scenes I've ever seen in a movie was in 1988's Funny Farm, starring Chevy Chase. He sets a new restaurant record (3 helpings) for eating euphemistically named "lamb fries", which, unknown to Chevy's character, are stir-fried sheep testicles. His reaction to the waitress' post-record explanation of the secret behind the making of a great lamb fry is hilarious...

Many people have a similar reaction to the consumption of organ meat in general (e.g., hearts, liver, tongue, kidneys, brain, feet, ears, stomach (tripe), intestines (chitterlings), etc.) Brian Wansink in Marketing Nutrition explains how the American government during World War II, sending typically preferred muscle meat overseas for the troops, were trying to coax a reluctant public to eat more nutritionally-dense organ meat.

Occasionally on my political blog, I will discuss feijoada, a Brazilian meal concept I experienced during my 1995 work trips to São Paulo. The Brazilian restaurants where I ate served feijoada on Wednesdays and Saturdays; it attracts a large crowd of yuppies. There were two adjacent buffet lines, emphasizing a variety of organ meats (including ears and tongue) and black beans. [I'm an adventuresome eater and tried a variety of dishes, including pig ears; I think it must be an acquired taste...] I was told that the traditional meal dated back to the days of Brazilian slavery when the slaveowners would harvest the choice cuts from a hog (e.g., ham, bacon, and other muscle meat), leaving the organs. I also noticed some churrascarias (Brazilian steakhouses) serve dozens of chicken hearts on skewers (thumbs up). [Waiters in churrrascarias circulate around tables bearing large chunks of various meats, from which they carve servings onto your dinner plate.]

I have observed when I roasted dozens of chickens and turkeys over the years, the first thing I generally look to eat is the giblets (or miscellaneous organ meats) for the poultry (often packaged separately from the bird). Eberling and Geary argue that organ meats are non-plant superfoods; they claim that in mankind's early dietary history and in many cultures, nutrient-dense organ meats were often preferred to muscle meat. In fact, native groups in the far north often eat organ meats in place of scarce plant-based food sources. There are a number of distinctive nutritional benefits depending on the type of meat, including iron (liver), B vitamins, vitamin D, CoQ10 (heart), Omega-3, CLA and various important minerals. For those not preferring the source meats, the authors suggest certain products containing a seasoned mixture of organ meats, such as Braunsweiger, liverwurst, and head cheese. They also point out that the amount of certain nutrients depends on the source animal's diet, e.g., pasture or flaxseed versus conventional grains.

An interesting related discussion is the anecdotal evidence that many wild animals, after killing their prey, will target the organ meat first. (One can argue that "the world is complex", because what an animal chooses to eat may depend on factors like when the animal last ate, the relative abundance of prey, complementary sources of nutrition, etc.)

I believe in the principle of nutritional diversity--having noted in past posts that cherrypicking of foods (e.g., filtering out egg yolks or refusing to eat fattier dark meat from poultry) arbitrarily excludes some excellent sources of nutrients for one's daily diet. Thus, I'm making an explicit attempt within my own diet to rotate in cold-water fish, beef and other red meat (buffalo and ostrich), poultry, pork and organ meats.

Nutrition Miscellany: 10/7/09

State Fairs and Making Use of Deep Fryers

Corn dogs. The All-American treat. Nearly 500 calories, 60 carbohydrate grams, and 40% of the suggested daily amount of sodium. Texan cooks sometimes add a block of cheddar cheese to the mix. What better for one's health than processed meat, refined cornmeal, and deep-fried in Omega-6 vegetable oil (with bonus trans fats)? Granted, an occasional indulgence isn't a major concern. But the obsession with deep frying goes beyond hot dogs; in Minnesota they have put other "nutritious" fare, such as cheese curds, pasta, and pizza, on a stick. Not to mention batter-coated Oreo cookies, candy bars, Twinkies, ice cream, and even watermelon, optionally served with French fries or ice cream.

Is it any wonder that McDonald's continues to innovate with products like the 400-plus calorie McGriddle sandwiches? According to Dietblog, "For starters - the word healthy is no longer used by McDonald's because "our consumer research shows people don’t understand it and it’s actually a turn off when it comes to food items.” (McDonald's)." This is, plain and simple, resistance to change and a state of denial. I mean, is it really necessary to candy walnuts for salads? When I cracked walnuts at home, I never even thought of asking my mom for some table sugar to mask the taste of shelled walnuts... There are a lot of ways for McDonald's to make things healthier without resorting to tofu burgers, e.g., options like baked or broiled fish or tuna fish (vs. fried breaded fish), low-fat cheese or mayonnaise, reduced sodium and more imaginative seasonings, improved, more generous vegetable fixings (or a condiment bar), ground turkey, whole-grain buns or flatbreads, and more flexible combos (allowing substitutions of yogurt, side salads, veggie cups (e.g., broccoli, celery, and carrots), or vegetable soups, bottled water, etc.)

In the meanwhile, if you want something on a stick, might I suggest bringing along a 1.5 oz stick of Ostrim jerky? 14 protein grams, a good source of potassium, low-fat and 80 calories.

Food Journals

Madeline Vann of Everydayhealth.com wrote a recent post entitled "Write Your Way to Weight Loss", pointing out a recent study where overweight dieters who kept a food journal or diary were found to have lost twice the weight of those whom didn't. There's certainly something to be said about creating goals and fleshing out more specific behavioral objectives.

Obviously writing things down isn't diet and exercise themselves. I see it as a means of self-discipline; many websites, including Nutrisystem, provide interactive tools to log diet and exercise, including a default menu boilerplate based on Nutrisystem and supplemental items. I have to define foods not in the Nutrisystem database, including unit measures and calorie counts. The daily process of recording my weight and my dietary choices in details keeps me honest and less likely to cheat or binge. Maintaining multiple observation points also allows me to plot meal/daily calories and weight trends over time.

I have not reviewed all the weight-loss software and websites, but one could easily conceive obvious feature improvements over the rudimentary tools I've primarily used to date. For example, one way would be improve integration of standard grocery and fast food items; one could also visualize utilities able to separate macronutrients (protein, carbs, fats), fiber, vitamin and mineral intakes and configure alerts to flag nutritional gaps or imbalances and/or to enforce certain dietary rules (e.g., eat cold water, oily fish twice a week) and to generate intelligent grocery shopping lists (identifying more nutritious food items/brands for target menus and suggested buys, e.g., sales on in-season fruits and vegetables, lower-calorie frozen meals, etc.)

Fast Food and Nutrition Disclosure

AP writer Megan Scott wrote a short article entitled "Calorie Counts on Menus Force Hard Choices", noting that consumers have been rethinking their food choices as local regulations force disclosure of nutrition facts. For example, the Chipolte wrap, by itself, is nearly 300 calories; the burrito fillings can add up to 700 (or more) calories. That Dunkin' Donuts low fat blueberry muffin is roughly 400 calories. NOTE: Many fast food chains (e.g., McDonald's) post nutritional information on the Internet. However, it is cumbersome to navigate several websites to do things like compare competitive products. Some websites, such as myfitnesspal.com, have food databases where you can search for items (and their relevant nutrition labels), e.g., "Kraft macaroni and cheese" or "Chipolte burrito".

Ms. Scott discusses a recent self-report study showing that providing additional nutritional information to New Yorkers influenced their decisions on where to eat half the time and what they ordered (up to 80%) of the time. [I am generally supportive of regulations providing basic information consumers need to know to make informed dietary choices.] These kinds of results challenge the orthodox opinions (cited above) that customers don't want healthier food choices. I've noticed this anecdotally on my trips to Sam's Club; I'll notice other overweight people with healthier items in their grocery carts, including vegetables, fruits, and heart-healthy wild salmon.

I do want to take issue with nutritionists cited in the article. One worries that people may make food purchases based on short-term nutritional considerations (like lower calories) and may binge later. (This is more likely if you eat a meal high in simple carbohydrates versus satiating protein/fats/complex carbs.) I am skeptical about these concerns; I think the New York consumers are more concerned about right-sizing their meals or improving their nutritional value.

Another dietitian argues that people are one of three types: one doesn't care about nutritional information; the other extreme makes too much of nutritional data and simplistic dietary principles like "low fat", "low calorie" or "low carb" versus general principles of nutritional diversity; and those in the middle (e.g., preferring a varied, balanced diet) don't really need it. The point is more that people may not realize that comfort foods they've been eating all their lives are often higher than they realized in calories, fat, and sodium; in addition, a lot of people don't realize that low fat foods don't necessarily mean low calorie--so, for example, a food company may substitute sugar calories in place of fat grams. It can also be difficult to realize portions are oversized without that information.

I support this information at the place of purchase on the principles of consumer information usability. In my articles on computer documentation and usability, I mention work done in applied psychology, e.g., Patricia Wright; one relevant point is that readers do not perform well in dealing with fragmentary information, making interpolations, etc. Having salient information at the point of a task, in this case, a food purchase, is important. I would expect informed nutritionists to come into a food purchase decision highly motivated, with memorized facts and heuristics; this is not a realistic assumption for most consumers.

It is true that people may be aware of nutrition labels and not be motivated to read them. There are a variety of reasons that doesn't happen, including not knowing how to read and interpret a list of ingredients, but also coming to the purchase decision with invalid product assumptions. I mentioned in a recent post that I had been purchasing a popular brand guacamole dip. There were pictures of avocados on the container and I saw obvious bits and pieces of avocado in the dip. Then I discovered, through a Rodale website, that the leading ingredient of this product was soybean oil. So while I thought I was getting a large portion of heart-healthy monounsaturated fat in the dip, I was really getting a large portion of n-6 PUFA's, something we have far too much of in the typical American diet.

I think that forcing restaurants to come clean with nutritional information may result in a strategy similar to Denny's, as mentioned in a prior post: smaller portion desserts, healthier sides, lower-sodium preparation, etc. I think when restaurants see that their bigger-portion/higher-calorie/salt/fat foods are losing sales momentum, they may choose to right-size their menu options. To some extent, the chains are already recognizing that; for example, you can order a Subway salad or wrap equivalent of their popular sandwiches, and you can purchase a burrito bowl at Chipolte.

Nutrition Miscellany: 10/4/09

Beef: Consider the Source...

Men's Health has an interesting post over the "world's most powerful eating strategies". In an earlier post I argued that what animals eat makes a significant difference in the nutrition characteristics of their meat or products (e.g., eggs). Phillip Rhodes points out that Argentinians eat on average over 30 lbs. more a year in beef, a favorite whipping boy of establishment nutritionists, without any increased risk of heart disease. What accounts for the difference? A quarter-pound of conventionally finished American beef has over four times the saturated fat and twice the calories of a grass-fed Argentinian beef patty (140 calories, 2.5 grams of saturated fat). I mentioned in earlier posts that grass-fed beef also has a more balanced Omega-6 to Omega-3 PUFA ratio and higher amounts of CLA, a "good" type of natural trans fat. There are some online sources of American grass-fed beef (e.g., U.S. Wellness Meats). [NOTE: I have not ordered shipped items from relevant vendors.]

The China Study?

I have not personally read T. Colin Campbell's 2005 study, which purports to provide an empirical foundation for a preferred vegan diet based on extensive empirical data, based in China. I'm an omnivore and proud of it (some of my favorite foods are plant-based...) and will reserve substantive comments for my own review.

[I once was criticized by one of my mentor professors in undergraduate school for relying too much on secondary sources. I also discovered that in the process of developing a documentation measure that there were issues with a widely respected and used computer user satisfaction measure in my interdisciplinary academic field (management information systems). I decided to read the original dissertation, initially intending to look at its methodology as a potential model for my own approach; on closer investigation, I soon found myself with serious doubts about the reference measure (statistical tests, deviations from scale development in the applied psychology literature, etc.) and abandoned the author's approach. A few years later, I tried to publish my criticisms of this and other MIS measures and their utilization in the literature (in fact, I was unaware of any other academic raising these issues, and I simply wanted to open a serious debate before other researchers continued to crank out research using suspect measures). My article was rejected in personal terms with predictable criticisms, e.g., why didn't I submit my own user satisfaction measure? In hindsight, it was not surprising that the editor would farm out the article to reviewers with a vested interest in the criticized measures.]

You might think this would make me sympathetic to Professor Campbell; after all, the vegan lifestyle (no meat, fish or dairy) is not widely followed and challenges a more conventional American diet. And there are some noteworthy developments, like middle-class Asians eating a more Western diet and developing similar health issues. My intuition, though, tells me that blaming meat and dairy is a red herring, especially given the fact that recent domestic health trends have not been accompanied by commensurate increases in the consumption of meat and dairy; I would also like to see more evidence of a suspect, implied zero-sum relationship with the consumption of vegetables and fruits. I suspect that there are issues with the nature and extent of carbohydrate and fat intakes, in particular, an unbalanced amount of n-6 PUFA's and trans fats, the nature of animal feeds and more prevalence of fast foods, processed foods, and refined carbohydrates. I also wonder, in the process of presenting a case for a vegan lifestyle, whether Dr. Campbell sufficiently addressed known issues related with a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. (In fact, one of my nieces adopted a more vegetarian lifestyle before abandoning it.) There are other anecdotal observations as well, for example, Asian-Americans (including females) towering over their parents (suggesting nutritional factors).

One of my favorite pastimes during my academic career was to go around the college bookstore, shelf-reading, particularly for research methodology texts being used in other disciplines. In an analogous way, one of the things I might do with a book like Colin Campbell's is to look at the reader reviews on Amazon.com's website. I wasn't so much interested in enthusiastic readers saying how reading the book changed their lives and their views on food, but in the readers whom DISAGREED with him--and not in personal terms, but for very specific reasons. For example, there's a criticism that Campbell makes a case against a specific milk protein (casein) but doesn't examine counterbalancing effects of other milk proteins. Another notes that Campbell is the co-author of a China-based article pointing out beneficial effects of fish/fish oil, but this (among other studies) doesn't fit in with his book's pro-vegan slant. A third criticism is Dr. Campbell's tendency to jump to other broad generalizations that simply aren't true, such as the assertion that folate is exclusively available from plant sources (versus, say, organ meat). Chris Masterjohn provides a good summary of criticisms against Campbell's book and replies to Campbell's response. [I was not favorably impressed with Campbell's use of ad hominem arguments. Furthermore, I am troubled by Campbell's relationship with certain special-interest groups; a scientist must be impartial in fact and appearance.]

Turkey Legs!

I LOVE turkey; it's more than just a holiday food to me. And in that recurring holiday debate: I prefer dark meat (the color is due to higher levels of myoglobin, which facilitates oxygen transport) to white meat; being the oldest of seven growing up, I usually lucked out in getting one of the drumsticks. Later, in fact, the mother-in-law to one of my sisters was going around a few years back with a camcorder, catching me right in the middle of chomping down on a turkey leg and asking how I liked it (now THAT'S a flattering picture I won't post in my blog anytime soon...)

Carolyn Kylstra, in Men's Health post entitled "6 Power Foods You Should Be Eating", points out poultry dark meat stimulates production of the hormone cholecystokinin (CCK), which promotes a feeling of satiety, has only modestly higher calories per ounce (approximately 8) over white meat, and only about 15% of the saturated fat, which accounts for a third of total fat, is the "bad" kind.

Dr. Fernstrom points out ostriches bear only relatively low-calorie dark meat. Not to mention: "compared with white meat, [dark meat] contains more iron, zinc, riboflavin, thiamine and vitamins B6 and B12."

These facts (including, as I mentioned in a past post, the fact that egg yolks contain a lion's share of nutrients) point out the danger in blindly following conventional nutritional heuristics (e.g., low-fat/low-cholesterol) white meat, nonfat milk products or egg whites: Consider more of a "whole foods" approach and limit your portions.