Emer'gen-C® Fizzing Drink Mix

A reader asked me if I had an opinion about Emer'gen-C^® Fizzing Drink Mix.

I wasn't familiar with it so I had a look.

It appears to be a drinkable vitamin and mineral supplement - with a substantial dose of vitamin C. Its selling point seems to be that the ascorbic acid is ingested as mineral ascorbates.

A mineral ascorbate is just vitamin C attached to a mineral. For example, calcium ascorbate is vitamin C attached to the mineral calcium. By the way, the popular Ester-C^® is primarily calcium ascorbate.

It looks like Emer'gen-C^® uses several mineral ascorbates besides calcium ascorbate ... sodium ascorbate, potassium ascorbate, magnesium ascorbate, etc.

Mineral ascorbates have a reputation for being less irritating to the gastrointestinal tract. It is true that mineral ascorbates are not as acidic as non-coupled ascorbic acid. But during digestion they dissociate into their components, in this case a mineral ion and ascorbic acid, both of which are eventually absorbed. So, I remain not fully convinced that a mineral ascorbate is truly less irritating. Although I accept it works for some people. (The power of a person's belief, that is, the placebo effect, should never be discounted.)

As a multivitamin and mineral supplement, it seems fine. It contains moderate amounts of the B vitamins and some minerals. (That amount of alpha-lipoic acid seems miniscule.) Most other multi's also contain some amount of vitamins A, D, E, K and a few other minerals so I wouldn't depend on this as a source of basic vitamin insurance.

I'm personally not a proponent of high intakes of vitamin C; for me that would be anything over 500mg/day. I was taught that vitamin C absorption decreases as intake increases. And what doesn't get absorbed ends up as food for intestinal bacteria. Also, best absorption occurs with divided doses.

If you're looking to get a healthy dose of antioxidants, there are various other phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables that are gaining repect in the research community for their antioxidant abilities, e.g. alpha- and beta-carotene, lycopene, lutein, etc. Then there are the anti-inflammatory compounds found in plants, e.g. curcumin, resveratrol, etc. Manufacturers are beginning to add these discrete compounds to their vitamin pill blends. Still, there isn't a pill I know of that supplies the full array of antioxidants that you can find in nature.

Lastly, my reader asked me if I "believe we should get what we need via good food and sun and water, etc.". Generally, yes. (I loved the way she said that.) But I don't see the harm, and I do see some good, in taking low-to-moderate-dose dietary supplements.

And since she asked, I also believe that adequate activity, rest, stress management, mental challenges, positive relationships, and laughter can have just as powerful an impact on health as what we eat.

Oh Give Me a Home Where the Sane Cattle Roam

It looks like Canada is experiencing its 4th case of mad cow since 2003.

Mad-cow Found in Animal Born After Feed Ban

Curiously, the cow in question was born 2.5 years after a ban on culprit feed was put into place.

Canada is downplaying this episode:

"As little as one milligram of contaminated feed could cause BSE."
- Dr. Brian Evans, chief veterinarian at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency

I guess it's reassuring that there was as little as 1 mg. of banned animal tissue in all of Canada's livestock feed, and that it only passed the choppers of this one cow, and since "the infected cow did not enter the food supply so there is no risk to consumers", we can relax and go ahead and add a little ground beef to this Sunday's chili.

I understand health officials and beef industry workers don't want to alarm the public or in any way disturb import, export, or retail sales of beef. But when they present such an incredulous story, they reveal outright contempt for the intellect of consumers.

Just go ahead and cry "Houston, we've got a problem." You'd be surprised how far honesty and transparency will get you. Well ... at least you'll be able to sleep at night.

By the way, the US reinstated imports of Canadian cattle in July, 2005. Canada is currently the number one supplier of cattle to the US:


Chart source: National Cattlemen's Beef Association, US Beef Imports Through August Continue at Record-setting Pace

Give Me Grass, Man

Again I hoist Doug's question from the grave of comments. (Some background: We're talking about food sources of omega-3 fatty acids. See "Something Smells (burp) Fishy".)

Q. Okay, I'm good: I like cauliflower and broccoli. I even like collard greens, when I can find them.

Sorry to keep asking things, but does cooked vs. raw matter?

A. I should emphasize first that vegetables aren't a potent source of omega-3 (n-3).

Whereas a 4 oz. serving of salmon supplies around a gram of n-3, a cup of broccoli or cauliflower supply around 1/100 of a gram of n-3. You'd have to eat 100 cups of broccoli to get the amount of n-3 you get in a measly 4 oz. piece of baked salmon.

(By the way, this is why it's important to establish standards for labeling an animal as "grass fed". They really do need to get the bulk of their calories from greens, not grains, for their flesh to be higher in n-3. I think it's misleading to call an animal "grass fed" if all you do is let it out for sun (and grass) in the afternoon, and supplement it with grain the rest of the time.)

But I wouldn't want to dissuade anyone from a habit of drinking freshly squeezed vegetable juice! It's so health-laden for so many reasons, if not as an n-3 source.

Back to the answer to your question.

The long name for what we're calling omega-3 is omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (n-3 PUFA). Given that n-3 is a fat, it makes sense that we don't find much in cabbages, and that we find lots in oily fish, or in linseed oil or other oils. And given that n-3 is a fat that's very unsaturated (polyunsaturated), it's very susceptible to degradation upon exposure to heat, light, or oxygen. (I've posted a little about degradation of fats at "They're Rancid", "No Smoking, Please", and "I Like Charts".)

We really do need those double bonds in an n-3 PUFA to be intact for it to continue along the path towards becoming an effective inflammation-reducing prostaglandin. Thus, raw is better than cooked. But, for practicality and safety, I don't think a quick steam or a light bake will impact n-3 content significantly. I wouldn't leave a bottle of walnut oil (or any oil) in the sun though. And I'd never fry with a mostly polyunsaturated oil.

~~~~~~"Cow on Hilly Pasture" from Terra Galleria.

Something Smells (burp) Fishy

Doug asked me a question that I decided to answer here in a post. It was getting a bit long for the comments section and I thought maybe others would find these intricacies of interest:

Q. "Fanatic, what are the best vegetables for omega-3s? I've been drinking a lot of freshly made vegetable juices lately -- cucumber, spinach, kale, carrots, beets. I wouldn't mind upping my omega-3s, and I'm a bit nervous about drinking fish oil. (Does it smell fishy?)"

A. I don't know anyone who takes fish oil that doesn't revisit (burp) that fish oil to some degree later. And yes, it smells like fish. Some manufacturers add peppermint oil to disguise the taste, but it really just adds to the sensation instead of masking it (minty fishy burp).

Your practice of drinking fresh vegetable juice is commendable! Keep it green (esp. members of the cabbage family), add some flax seeds, and if you dare, clove, oregano and mustard seeds, and you'll be drinking a veritable omega-3 tonic.

There's one drawback to depending on vegetables as your omega-3 source. The type of omega-3's that exist in plants (alpha-linolenic acid: ALA) must be converted to longer chain EPA and DHA in our bodies before they have effect. And here's the clincher, our bodies do very little of that conversion when there's a lot of omega-6 present, since both omega-3 and omega-6 compete for those conversion enzymes.

So if your ratio is, say, 20:1 (heavy on omega-6) and you're a vegetarian (that is, you're not getting EPA and DHA directly from animal foods - it is primarily animals that make the enzymes to perform the conversion to EPA and DHA, not plants), I would guess that your EPA/DHA stores are low and that your omega-6s are sucking up those conversion enzymes and placing you in a pro-inflammatory state - setting you up to develop or exacerbate many 20th century chronic diseases. That would be my guess :)

Remember, it's the ratio (omega-6 : omega-3) that's significant:

"... it isn't just that we're not getting enough omega-3. It's that we're simultaneously getting too much omega-6."

So for vegetarians or people who are fish-averse, it becomes vital to decrease omega-6. Most margarines and packaged prepared foods (cookies/crackers) are full of it. I would shun the oils mentioned in my previous post and replace them with extra-virgin olive oil. Keep in mind that even though soy, canola, and walnuts are sources of omega-3 (ALA), they contain proportionately more omega-6.

If you decide to take fish oil, here's a tip from a user I know. Down it just before you eat a meal. The food you layer on top of it in your stomach cuts down on fish-burp.

~~~~~~"Fish Painting" by Brendan Wiuff.

The Meatrix

I know. I'm late to another movie. So late I hear the sequel is due out in March. I better get cracking and get the premiere episode under my belt. Pull up a chair if you've missed it too:




A teaser for the sequel:

Mercury Limits in Fish

The current U.S. do-not-sell limit is 1.0 ppm - that's 1.0 parts of mercury per million parts of fish tissue.

The limit was 0.50 ppm in the 1970's, during which time canned tuna was found to surpass that amount. Subsequently, 12 million cans of tuna were recalled - and the limit was quickly raised. Canada's limit is still 0.50 ppm.

Here is the FDA/EPA's current table of mercury levels in fish. As you can see, the data is not recent. The FDA has promised to sample 29 species of fish this year to update their numbers.

Mercury Levels in Commercial Fish and Shellfish

Click chart for full table.
The FDA also said it would look into the concern over mercury levels in canned tuna - a concern raised by the Chicago Tribune's investigation:

"Responding to a Tribune series this month on mercury in fish, the FDA said it will review the possibility that there are elevated mercury levels in some cans of "light tuna," one of America's best-selling seafoods and a product the agency has recommended repeatedly as a low-mercury choice."

Can't Live With 'Em, Can't Live Without 'Em: Fish

While I was away, this series of articles appeared in the Chicago Tribune (You'll need to register, but it's free, easy, and worth it, especially for that fish calculator):

The Mercury Menace (December 11-13, 2005)

This is one big fish. The mercury contamination seems to be bigger than imagined, certainly bigger than the government has let on. I'm sure the media were all over this news. (Were they?) Regardless, here's my contribution for keeping this fish story afloat.

Fish: Why We Can't Live Without Them

Fish, especially cold-water, oily fish, are our last great hope in maintaining a respectable, if not necessary, omega-6/omega-3 ratio in our bodies. That ratio has crept from 1:1 several thousand years ago to an astonishing 20:1 today (in the US). And that lopsided ratio - heavy on the omega-6, light on the omega-3 - is now thought to be a major contributor to today's increase in inflammation-related chronic conditions ... asthma, arthritis, heart disease, lupus, MS, even cancer and mood disorders. Why? Because omega-3 fats are the precursors to anti-inflammatory compounds in our body.

You see, it isn't just that we're not getting enough omega-3. It's that we're simultaneously getting too much omega-6. And omega-6 fats are precursors to pro-inflammatory compounds in our body.

Why are we getting so little omega-3?

1. Our bodies make omega-3 compounds (EPA and DHA are some biologically active ones) from omega-3-containing vegetable matter. We're eating less of that vegetable matter.

2. Cows and chickens and fish also make omega-3 compounds (EPA, DHA) from omega-3-containing vegetable matter. Most livestock are eating less of that vegetable matter. So, when we eat their flesh, we fail to get the EPA and DHA that our human ancestors got when they ate their flesh.

The grains we're feeding our livestock, e.g. corn and soy, are heavy on the omega-6 and light, if nonexistent, on the omega-3. (A chicken that's advertised as "Fed an organic, all-vegetable diet!" is no better.) Animals that are allowed to pasture and are grass-fed instead of grain-fed consume a diet lower in omega-6 and higher in omega-3. That's better for the cow and better for the human that eats the cow.

Until recently, fish were the only regularly consumed animal not force-fed a grain-heavy diet. That's why fish and fish oil are touted as being high in omega-3. They are! But that could change if we corral fish into farms and force them to eat cornmeal and soymeal too. It's not that fish are a miracle food.

Why are we getting so much omega-6?

You might have deduced that we, like the cow, are eating a grain-heavy diet. You'd be right. We're also eating a lot of the oils from grains and other omega-6-rich foods - corn oil, soybean oil, canola oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil, peanut oil, etc. Even walnuts which have that "High in omega-3!" label are actually higher in omega-6 fatty acids than omega 3's.

How to improve our omega-6/omega-3 ratio?

Eat more fish.


Fish: Why We Can't Live With Them

The single greatest source of mercury in our diet is fish. And, according to the NIH Division of Safety:

"Elemental (metallic) mercury and its compounds are toxic and exposure to excessive levels can permanently damage or fatally injure the brain and kidneys."

Now, let me return to the Chicago Tribune's investigative report on mercury in fish.

In summary:

• Reporters working for the Chicago Tribune conducted an 8-month investigation of mercury in fish.
  
• They tested 144 fish samples from the Chicago area - "one of the nation's most comprehensive studies of mercury in commercial fish".
  
• "The testing showed that mercury is more pervasive in fish than what the government has told the public."
  
• "Regulators do not inspect seafood for mercury - not in ports, processing plants or supermarkets." In fact, "no federal testing program exists for mercury."
  
• Even when found, "The government does not seize high-mercury fish that violate U.S. limits."

It's really a landmark investigation. Kudos to the Tribune. I recommend a peek at the article. Even if you don't have time to read the stories, there are some nice graphics and a handy interactive fish-consumption calculator.

So, do we eat the fish (canned tuna included) and deal with the high mercury levels? Or do we shun the fish and deal with inflammation-based diseases? It's not a pleasant choice.

Welcome Back

I've been cooking like a fiend. Bear witness.
(I swear it's squeaky clean; you could eat from it.)