MY WORLD OF TRUTH

Sunday, 31 May 2020

The secret to a long and healthy life? Eat less

In a restaurant setting sometime in the not-too distant future, a man and a woman are on their first date. After the initial nerves subside, all is going well.
The man is 33, he says, has been single for most of those years, and, although he doesn’t mention it, knows he is looking to settle down and have a family. The woman replies that she is 52, has been married, divorced, and has children in their early 20s. He had no idea – she looked his age, or younger.
This is a dream of Julie Mattison from the National Institute on Ageing (NIA) in the United States. She envisions a time when chronological age ticks by with every year, but biological age can be set to a different timer, where elderly doesn’t mean what it does now.
It sounds far-fetched, but our society has already made great strides towards that goal, thanks to advances in medicine and improvements in healthy living. In 2014, for instance, the United States Health Interview Survey reported that 16% of people aged between 50 and 64 were impaired every day with chronic illness. Three decades earlier that number was 23%. In other words, as well as benefiting from longer lifespans, we are also experiencing longer “healthspans” – and the latter is proving to be even more malleable. To paraphrase and update a speech from John F Kennedy given at the first White House Conference on Ageing in 1961, life can indeed be added to years, rather than just years added to life.

Healthspan is proving to be even more malleable than lifespan  

So, what do we need to do to enhance the length and quality of our lives even more? Researchers worldwide are pursuing various ideas, but for Mattison and colleagues, the answer is a simple change in diet. They believe that the key to a better old age may be to reduce the amount of food on our plates, via an approach called “calorie restriction”. This diet goes further than cutting back on fatty foods from time-to-time; it’s about making gradual and careful reductions in portion size permanently. Since the early 1930s, a 30% reduction in the amount of food consumed per day has been linked to longer, more active lives in worms, flies, rats, mice, and monkeys. Across the animal kingdom, in other words, calorie restriction has proven the best remedy for the ravages of life. And it’s possible that humans have just as much to gain.
High calorie foods can be hard to avoid today (Credit: Getty Images)
High calorie foods can be hard to avoid today (Credit: Getty Images)
The idea that what a person eats influences their health no doubt predates any historical accounts that remain today. But, as is often the case for any scientific discipline, the first detailed accounts come from Ancient Greece. Hippocrates, one of the first physicians to claim diseases were natural and not supernatural, observed that many ailments were associated with gluttony; obese Greeks tended to die younger than slim Greeks, that was clear and written down on papyrus.
Spreading from this epicentre of science, these ideas were adopted and adapted over the centuries. And at the end of the 15th Century, Alvise Cornaro, an infirm aristocrat from a small village near Venice in Italy, turned the prevailing wisdom on its head, and on himself.
If indulgence was harmful, would dietary asceticism be helpful? To find out, Cornaro, aged 40, ate only 350g (12oz) of food per day, roughly 1000 calories according to recent estimates. He ate bread, panatela or broth, and eggs. For meat he chose veal, goat, beef, partridge, thrush, and any poultry that was available. He bought fish caught from the local rivers.
Restricted in amount but not variety, Cornaro claimed to have achieved “perfect health” up until his death more than 40 years later. Although he changed his birthdate as he aged, claiming that he had reached his 98th year, it is thought that he was around 84 when he died – still an impressive feat in the 16th Century, a time when 50 or 60 years old was considered elderly. In 1591, his grandson published his posthumous three-volume tome entitled “Discourses on the Sober Life,” pushing dietary restriction into the mainstream, and redefining ageing itself.
With an additional boost of health into the evening of life, the elderly, in full possession of their mental capacities, would be able to put decades of amassed knowledge to good use, Carnaro claimed. With his diet, beauty became the aged, not the youthful.
Longevity trials
Cornaro was an interesting man but his findings are not to be taken as fact by any branch of science. Even if he was true to his word and did not suffer ill health for nearly half a century, which seems unlikely, he was a case study of one – not representative of humans as a whole.
But since a foundational study in 1935 in white rats, a dietary restriction of between 30-50% has been shown to extend lifespan, delaying death from age-related disorders and disease. Of course, what works for a rat or any other laboratory organism might not work for a human.
It may sound obvious, but what you choose to put in your trolley can have a profound effect on the length and quality of your life (Credit: Getty Images)
It may sound obvious, but what you choose to put in your trolley can have a profound effect on the length and quality of your life (Credit: Getty Images)
Long-term trials, following humans from early adulthood to death, are a rarity. “I don’t see a human study of longevity as something that would be a fundable research programme,” says Mattison. “Even if you start humans at 40 or 50 years old, you’re still looking at potentially 40 or 50 more years [of study].” Plus, she adds, ensuring that extraneous factors – exercise, smoking, medical treatments, mental wellbeing – don’t influence the trial’s end results is near impossible for our socially and culturally complex species.
That’s why, in the late 1980s, two independent long-term trials – one at NIA and the other at the University of Wisconsin – were set up to study calorie restriction and ageing in Rhesus monkeys. Not only do we share 93% of our DNA with these primates, we age in the same way too.
Slowly, after middle age (around 15 years in Rhesus monkeys) the back starts to hunch, the skin and muscles start to sag, and, where it still grows, hair goes from gingery brown to grey. The similarities go deeper. In these primates, the occurrence of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease increases in frequency and severity with age. “They’re an excellent model to study ageing,” says Rozalyn Anderson, a gerontologist from the University of Wisconsin. 

Sherman is the oldest Rhesus monkey ever recorded, nearly 20 years older than the average lifespan for his species in captivity  

And they’re easy to control. Fed with specially made biscuits, the diets of the 76 monkeys at the University of Wisconsin and the 121 at NIA are tailored to their age, weight, and natural appetite. All monkeys receive the full complement of nutrients and minerals that their bodies crave. It’s just that half of the monkeys, the calorie restricted (or CR) group, eat 30% less.
They are far from malnourished or starving. Take Sherman, a 43-year-old monkey from NIA. Mattison says that since being placed on the CR diet in 1987, aged 16, Sherman hasn’t shown any overt signs of hunger that are well characterised in his species.
Rhesus monkeys given a stricter, low calorie diet lived longer (Credit: Getty Images)
Rhesus monkeys given a stricter, low calorie diet lived longer (Credit: Getty Images)
Sherman is the oldest Rhesus monkey ever recorded, nearly 20 years older than the average lifespan for his species in captivity. As younger monkeys were developing diseases and dying, he seemed to be immune to ageing. Even into his 30s he would have been considered an old monkey, but he didn’t look or act like one. 
The same is true, to varying extents, for the rest of his experimental troop at NIA. “We have a lower incidence of diabetes, and lower incidence of cancer in the CR groups,” says Mattison. In 2009, the University of Wisconsin trial published similarly spectacular results.
Not only did their CR monkeys look remarkably younger – with more hair, less sag, and brown instead of grey – than monkeys that were fed a standard diet, they were healthier on the inside too, free from pathology. Cancers, such as the common intestinal adenocarcinoma, were reduced by over 50%. The risk of heart disease was similarly halved. And while 11 of the ad libitum (“at one’s pleasure,” in Latin) monkeys developed diabetes and five exhibited signs that they were pre-diabetic, the blood glucose regulation seemed healthy in all CR monkeys. For them, diabetes wasn’t a thing.   
Overall, only 13% of the monkeys in the CR group had died of age-related causes in 20 years. In the ad libitum group, 37% had died, nearly three times as many. In an update study from the University of Wisconsin in 2014, this percentage remained stable.

The results show that ageing itself is a reasonable target for clinical intervention and medical treatment – Rozalyn Anderson  

“We have demonstrated that ageing can be manipulated in primates,” says Anderson. “It kind of gets glossed over because it’s obvious, but conceptually that’s hugely important; it means that ageing itself is a reasonable target for clinical intervention and medical treatment.”
If ageing can be delayed, in other words, all of the diseases associated with it will follow suit. “Going after each disease one at a time isn’t going to significantly extend lifespan for people because they’ll die of something else,” says Anderson. “If you cured all cancers, you wouldn’t offset death due to cardiovascular disease, or dementia, or diabetes-associated disorders. Whereas if you go after ageing you can offset the lot in one go.”
Calorie restriction involves a permanent reduction in a diet (Credit: Getty Images)
Calorie restriction involves a permanent reduction in a diet (Credit: Getty Images)
Eating less certainly seemed to help the monkeys, but calorie restriction is much tougher for people out in the real world. For one, our access to regular, high-calorie meals is now easier than ever; with companies like Deliveroo and UberEats, there is no longer a need to walk to the restaurant anymore. And two, gaining weight simply comes more naturally to some people.
“There’s a huge genetic component to all of this and its much harder work for some people than it is for others to stay trim,” says Anderson. “We all know someone who can eat an entire cake and nothing happens, they look the exact same. And then someone else walks past a table with a cake on it and they have to go up a pant size.”
Ideally, the amount and types of food we eat should be tailored to who we are – our genetic predisposition to gaining weight, how we metabolise sugars, how we store fat, and other physiological fluxes that are beyond the scope of scientific instruction at the moment, and perhaps forever.
But a predisposition to obesity can be used as a guide to life choices rather than an inevitability. “I personally have a genetic history of obesity running through my family, and I practice a flexible form of caloric restriction,” says Susan Roberts a dietary scientist at Tufts University in Boston. “I keep my BMI at 22, and [have calculated] that that requires eating 80% of what I would eat if my BMI was at 30 like every other member of my family.” Roberts stresses that it isn’t hard – she follows her own weight management programme using a tool called iDiet to help her eat less but avoid feeling hungry or deprived of enjoyment. If this wasn’t possible, she adds, she wouldn’t practise calorie restriction.
Not only has Roberts seen the problems of obesity first-hand in her family, she knows the benefits of CR better than most. For over 10 years she has been a leading scientist in the Comprehensive Assessment of Long-Term Effects of Reducing Intake of Energy trial, also known as Calerie. Over two years, 218 healthy men and women aged between 21 and 50 years were split into two groups.  In one, people were allowed to eat as they normally would (ad libitum), while the other ate 25% less (CR). Both had health checks every six months.
Unlike in the Rhesus monkey trials, tests over two years can’t determine whether CR reduces or delays age-related diseases. There simply isn’t enough time for their development. But the Calerie trials tested for the next best thing: the early biological signs of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.
Published in 2015, the results after two years were very positive. In the blood of calorie-restricted people, the ratio of “good” cholesterol to “bad” cholesterol had increased, molecules associated with tumour formation – called tumour necrosis factors (TNFs) – were reduced by around 25%, and levels of insulin resistance, a sure sign of diabetes, fell by nearly 40% compared to people who ate their normal diets. Overall, the blood’s pressure was lower.

Significant health benefits may be garnered in an already healthy body, but further trials are needed  

Admittedly, some benefits may come from weight-loss. Earlier trials from Calerie had included people that were obese as well as those with a healthy body mass index (BMI) of 25 or below, and slimming down would have certainly improved the welfare of the heavier participants. “One thing that’s been very clear for a long time is that being overweight or obese is bad for you,” says Roberts. Diseases and disorders previously thought to be age-associated diseases are now popping up in the obese population, she adds.
But the latest results suggested that significant health benefits can be garnered in an already healthy body – a person who isn’t underweight or obese. That is, someone whose BMI lies between 18.5 and 25.
Despite these results, evidence from further trials will be needed before someone with an already healthy BMI should be advised to reduce their calorie intake. (And anyone wanting to change their diet would be advised to consult a medical professional beforehand.)
Elderly life need not be one of disease and illness (Credit: Getty Images)
Elderly life need not be one of disease and illness (Credit: Getty Images)
In the meantime, the scientists will be hoping that their rhesus macaques may help us to understand exactly why calories restriction may have these effects. With nearly 30 years of data on lives and deaths, and blood and tissue samples, from nearly 200 monkeys, the work at NIA and the University of Wisconsin aim to shine a light into the black box of calorie restriction, illuminating just how it delays ageing.
With less food, is the metabolism forced to be more efficient with what it has? Is there a common molecular switch regulating ageing that is turned on (or off) with fewer calories? Or is there an as of yet unknown mechanism underpinning our lives and deaths? The importance of monkeys like Sherman far outspans their lives.

Calorie restriction may be one of the most promising avenues for improving health and how long it lasts in our lives

Answers to such questions might be long in coming. “If I cloned 10 of myself and we all worked furiously, I don’t think we’d have it solved,” says Anderson. “The biology is inordinately complicated.” It’s a worthwhile undertaking – understand how CR works and other treatments could then be used to target that specific part of our biology. Ageing could be treated directly, that is, without the need of calorie restriction. “And I think that’s really the golden ticket,” says Anderson.
Although lacking a neat explanation, calorie restriction is one of the most promising avenues for improving health and how long it lasts in our lives. “There was nothing in what we saw that made us think caloric restriction doesn’t work in people,” says Roberts, from the Calerie trial. And, unlike drug-based treatments, it doesn’t come with a long list of possible side effects. “Our people were not hungrier, their mood was fine, their sexual function was fine. We looked pretty hard for bad things and didn’t find them,” says Roberts.
One expected issue was a slight decrease in bone density that is often tied to gradual weight loss, says Roberts. But as a precaution, volunteers were provided with small calcium supplements throughout the trial.
Even with such promising findings, “this [the Calerie trial] is the first study of its kind, and I don’t think that any of us would feel confident in saying, ‘okay, we’re going to recommend this to everyone in the world,’” says Roberts. “But it’s a really exciting prospect. I think that delaying the progression of chronic diseases is something that everyone can get behind and get excited about, because nobody wants to live life with one of those.”
posted by Davidblogger50 at 02:00 0 comments

Monday, 11 May 2020

The world’s most nutritious foods.

Imagine the ideal food. One that contains all the nutrients necessary to meet, but not exceed, our daily nutrient demands. If such a food existed, consuming it, without eating any other, would provide the optimal nutritional balance for our body.
Such a food does not exist. But we can do the next best thing.
The key is to eat a balance of highly nutritional foods, that when consumed together, do not contain too much of any one nutrient, to avoid exceeding daily recommended amounts. That's especially important when we are thrown out of our usual routines, as so many have been with enforced isolation during the current pandemic.
Scientists studied more than 1,000 foods, assigning each a nutritional score. The higher the score, the more likely each food would meet, but not exceed your daily nutritional needs, when eaten in combination with others.
100. SWEET POTATO (v)
86kcal, $0.21, per 100g
A bright orange tuber, sweet potatoes are only distantly related to potatoes. They are rich in beta-carotene.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 49
99. FIGS (v)
249kcal, $0.81, per 100g
Figs have been cultivated since ancient times. Eaten fresh or dried, they are rich in the mineral manganese.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 49
98. GINGER (v)
80kcal, $0.85, per 100g
Ginger contains high levels of antioxidants. In medicine, it is used as a digestive stimulant and to treat colds.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 49
97. PUMPKIN (v)
26kcal, $0.20, per 100g
Pumpkins are rich in yellow and orange pigments. Especially xanthophyll esters and beta-carotene.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 50
96. BURDOCK ROOT (v)
72kcal, $1.98, per 100g
Used in folk medicine and as a vegetable, studies suggest burdock can aid fat loss and limit inflammation.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 50
95. BRUSSELS SPROUTS (v)
43kcal, $0.35, per 100g
A type of cabbage. Brussels sprouts originated in Brussels in the 1500s. They are rich in calcium and vitamin C.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 50
94. BROCCOLI (v)
34kcal, $0.42, per 100g
Broccoli heads consist of immature flower buds and stems. US consumption has risen five-fold in 50 years.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 50
93. CAULIFLOWER (v)
31kcal, $0.44, per 100g
Unlike broccoli, cauliflower heads are degenerate shoot tips that are frequently white, lacking green chlorophyll.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 50
92. WATER CHESTNUTS (v)
97kcal, $1.50, per 100g
The water chestnut is not a nut at all, but an aquatic vegetable that grows in mud underwater within marshes.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 50
91. CANTALOUPE MELONS (v)
34kcal, $0.27, per 100g
One of the foods richest in glutathione, an antioxidant that protects cells from toxins including free radicals.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 50
Cantaloupe melon - rich in antioxidants
90. PRUNES (v)
240kcal, $0.44, per 100g
Dried plums are very rich in health-promoting nutrients such as antioxidants and anthocyanins.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 50
89. COMMON OCTOPUS
82kcal, $1.50, per 100g
Though nutritious, recent evidence suggests octopus can carry harmful shellfish toxins and allergens.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 50
88. CARROTS (v)
36kcal, $0.40, per 100g
Carrots first appeared in Afghanistan 1,100 years ago. Orange carrots were grown in Europe in the 1500s.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 51
87. WINTER SQUASH (v)
34kcal, $0.24, per 100g
Unlike summer squashes, winter squashes are eaten in the mature fruit stage. The hard rind is usually not eaten.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 51
86. JALAPENO PEPPERS (v)
29kcal, $0.66, per 100g
The same species as other peppers. Carotenoid levels are 35 times higher in red jalapenos that have ripened.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 51
85. RHUBARB (v)
21kcal, $1.47, per 100g
Rhubarb is rich in minerals, vitamins, fibre and natural phytochemicals that have a role in maintaining health.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 51
84. POMEGRANATES (v)
83kcal, $1.31, per 100g
Their red and purple colour is produced by anthocyanins that have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 51
83. RED CURRANTS (v)
56kcal, $0.44, per 100g
Red currants are also rich in anthocyanins. White currants are the same species as red, whereas black currants differ.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 51
82. ORANGES (v)
46kcal, $0.37, per 100g
Most citrus fruits grown worldwide are oranges. In many varieties, acidity declines with fruit ripeness.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 51
81. CARP
127kcal, $1.40, per 100g
A high proportion of carp is protein, around 18%. Just under 6% is fat, and the fish contains zero sugar.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 51
80. HUBBARD SQUASH (v)
40kcal, $8.77, per 100g
A variety of the species Cucurbita maxim. Tear-drop shaped, they are often cooked in lieu of pumpkins.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 52
79. KUMQUATS (v)
71kcal, $0.69, per 100g
An unusual citrus fruit, kumquats lack a pith inside and their tender rind is not separate like an orange peel.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 52
78. POMPANO
164kcal, $1.44, per 100g
Often called jacks, Florida pompanos are frequently-caught western Atlantic fish usually weighing under 2kg.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 52
77. PINK SALMON
127kcal, $1.19, per 100g
These fish are rich in long-chain fatty acids, such as omega-3s, that improve blood cholesterol levels.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 52
76. SOUR CHERRIES (v)
50kcal, $0.58, per 100g
Sour cherries (Prunus cerasus) are a different species to sweet cherries (P. avium). Usually processed or frozen.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 53
75. RAINBOW TROUT
141kcal, $3.08, per 100g
Closely related to salmon, rainbow trout are medium-sized Pacific fish also rich in omega-3s.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 53
74. PERCH
91kcal, $1.54, per 100g
Pregnant and lactating women are advised not to eat perch. Though nutritious, it may contain traces of mercury.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 53
73. GREEN BEANS (v)
31kcal, $0.28, per 100g
Green beans, known as string, snap or French beans, are rich in saponins, thought to reduce cholesterol levels.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 54
72. RED LEAF LETTUCE (v)
16kcal, $1.55, per 100g
Evidence suggests lettuce was cultivated before 4500 BC. It contains almost no fat or sugar and is high in calcium.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 54
71. LEEKS (v)
61kcal, $1.83, per 100g
Leeks are closely related to onions, shallots, chives and garlic. Their wild ancestor grows around the Mediterranean basin.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 54
Rolled out leeks can make a healthier lasagne than using pasta sheets
70. CAYENNE PEPPER (v)
318kcal, $22.19, per 100g
Powdered cayenne pepper is produced from a unique cultivar of the pepper species Capsicum annuum.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 54
69. GREEN KIWIFRUIT (v)
61kcal, $0.22, per 100g
Kiwifruit are native to China. Missionaries took them to New Zealand in the early 1900s, where they were domesticated.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 54
68. GOLDEN KIWIFRUIT (v)
63kcal, $0.22, per 100g
Kiwifruits are edible berries rich in potassium and magnesium. Some golden kiwifruits have a red centre.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 54
67. GRAPEFRUIT (v)
32kcal, $0.27, per 100g
Grapefruits (Citrus paradisi) originated in the West Indies as a hybrid of the larger pomelo fruit.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 54
66. MACKEREL
139kcal, $2.94, per 100g
An oily fish, one serving can provide over 10 times more beneficial fatty acids than a serving of a lean fish such as cod.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 54
65. SOCKEYE SALMON
131kcal, $3.51, per 100g
Another oily fish, rich in cholesterol-lowering fatty acids. Canned salmon with bones is a source of calcium.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 54
64. ARUGULA (v)
25kcal, $0.48, per 100g
A salad leaf, known as rocket. High levels of glucosinolates protect against cancer and cardiovascular disease.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 55
63. CHIVES (v)
25kcal, $0.22, per 100g
Though low in energy, chives are high in vitamins A and K. The green leaves contain a range of beneficial antioxidants.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 55
62. PAPRIKA (v)
282kcal, $1.54, per 100g
Also extracted from the pepper species Capsicum annuum. A spice rich in ascorbic acid, an antioxidant.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 55
61. RED TOMATOES (v)
18kcal, $0.15, per 100g
A low-energy, nutrient-dense food that are an excellent source of folate, potassium and vitamins A, C and E.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 56
60. GREEN TOMATOES (v)
23kcal, $0.33, per 100g
Fruit that has not yet ripened or turned red. Consumption of tomatoes is associated with a decreased cancer risk.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 56
59. GREEN LETTUCE (v)
15kcal, $1.55, per 100g
The cultivated lettuce (Lactuca sativa) is related to wild lettuce (L. serriola), a common weed in the US.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 56
58. TARO LEAVES (v)
42kcal, $2.19, per 100g
Young taro leaves are relatively high in protein, containing more than the commonly eaten taro root.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 56
57. LIMA BEANS (v)
106kcal, $0.50, per 100g
Also known as butter beans, lima beans are high in carbohydrate, protein and manganese, while low in fat.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 56
56. EEL
184kcal, $2.43, per 100g
A good source of riboflavin (vitamin B2), though the skin mucus of eels can contain harmful marine toxins.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 56
55. BLUEFIN TUNA
144kcal, $2.13, per 100g
A large fish, rich in omega-3s. Pregnant women are advised to limit their intake, due to mercury contamination.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 56
54. COHO SALMON
146kcal, $0.86, per 100g
A Pacific species also known as silver salmon. Relatively high levels of fat, as well as long-chain fatty acids.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 56
53. SUMMER SQUASH (v)
17kcal, $0.22, per 100g
Harvested when immature, while the rind is still tender and edible. Its name refers to its short storage life.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 57
52. NAVY BEANS (v)
337kcal, $0.49, per 100g
Also known as haricot or pea beans. The fibre in navy beans has been correlated with the reduction of colon cancer.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 57
51. PLANTAIN (v)
122kcal, $0.38, per 100g
Banana fruits with a variety of antioxidant, antimicrobial, hypoglycaemic and anti-diabetic properties.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 57
Plantain, a variety of banana fruit
50. PODDED PEAS (v)
42kcal, $0.62, per 100g
Peas are an excellent source of protein, carbohydrates, dietary fibre, minerals and water-soluble vitamins.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 58
49. COWPEAS (v)
44kcal, $0.68, per 100g
Also called black-eyed peas. As with many legumes, high in carbohydrate, containing more protein than cereals.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 58
48. BUTTER LETTUCE (v)
13kcal, $0.39, per 100g
Also known as butterhead lettuce, and including Boston and bib varieties. Few calories. Popular in Europe.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 58
47. RED CHERRIES (v)
50kcal, $0.33, per 100g
A raw, unprocessed and unfrozen variety of sour cherries (Prunus cerasus). Native to Europe and Asia.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 58
46. WALNUTS (v)
619kcal, $3.08, per 100g
Walnuts contain sizeable proportions of a-linolenic acid, the healthy omega-3 fatty acid made by plants.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 58
45. FRESH SPINACH (v)
23kcal, $0.52, per 100g
Contains more minerals and vitamins (especially vitamin A, calcium, phosphorus and iron) than many salad crops. Spinach appears twice in the list (45 and 24) because the way it is prepared affects its nutritional value. Fresh spinach can lose nutritional value if stored at room temperature, and ranks lower than eating spinach that has been frozen, for instance.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 59
44. PARSLEY (v)
36kcal, $0.26, per 100g
A relative of celery, parsley was popular in Greek and Roman times. High levels of a range of beneficial minerals. 
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 59
43. HERRING
158kcal, $0.65, per 100g
An Atlantic fish, among the top five most caught of all species. Rich in omega-3s, long-chain fatty acids.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 59
42. SEA BASS
97kcal, $1.98, per 100g
A generic name for a number of related medium-sized oily fish species. Popular in the Mediterranean area.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 59
41. CHINESE CABBAGE (v)
13kcal, $0.11, per 100g
Variants of the cabbage species Brassica rapa, often called pak-choi or Chinese mustard. Low calorie. 
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 60
40. CRESS (v)
32kcal, $4.49, per 100g
The brassica Lepidium sativum, not to be confused with watercress Nasturtium officinale. High in iron.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 60
39. APRICOTS (v)
48kcal, $0.36, per 100g
A ’stone’ fruit relatively high in sugar, phytoestrogens and antioxidants, including the carotenoid beta-carotene.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 60
38. FISH ROE
134kcal, $0.17, per 100g
Fish eggs (roe) contain high levels of vitamin B-12 and omega-3 fatty acids. Caviar often refers to sturgeon roe.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 60
37. WHITEFISH
134kcal, $3.67, per 100g
Species of oily freshwater fish related to salmon. Common in the northern hemisphere. Rich in omega-3s.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 60
36. CORIANDER (v)
23kcal, $7.63, per 100g
A herb rich in carotenoids, used to treat ills including digestive complaints, coughs, chest pains and fever.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 61
35. ROMAINE LETTUCE (v)
17kcal, $1.55, per 100g
Also known as cos lettuce, another variety of Lactuca sativa. The fresher the leaves, the more nutritious they are.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 61
34. MUSTARD LEAVES (v)
27kcal, $0.29, per 100g
One of the oldest recorded spices. Contains sinigrin, a chemical thought to protect against inflammation.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 61
33. ATLANTIC COD
82kcal, $3.18, per 100g
A large white, low fat, protein-rich fish. Cod livers are a source of fish oil rich in fatty acids and vitamin D.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 61
32. WHITING
90kcal, $0.60, per 100g
Various species, but often referring to the North Atlantic fish Merlangius merlangus that is related to cod.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 61
31. KALE (v)
49kcal, $0.62, per 100g
A leafy salad plant, rich in the minerals phosphorous, iron and calcium, and vitamins such as A and C.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 62
30. BROCCOLI RAAB (v)
22kcal, $0.66, per 100g
Not to be confused with broccoli. It has thinner stems and smaller flowers, and is related to turnips.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 62
29. CHILI PEPPERS (v)
324kcal, $1.20, per 100g
The pungent fruits of the Capsicum plant. Rich in capsaicinoid, carotenoid and ascorbic acid antioxidants.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 62
28. CLAMS
86kcal, $1.78, per 100g
Lean, protein-rich shellfish. Often eaten lightly cooked, though care must be taken to avoid food poisoning.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 62
27. COLLARDS (v)
32kcal, $0.74, per 100g
Another salad leaf belonging to the Brassica genus of plants. A headless cabbage closely related to kale.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 63
26. BASIL (v)
23kcal, $2.31, per 100g
A spicy, sweet herb traditionally used to protect the heart. Thought to be an antifungal and antibacterial.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 63
25. CHILI POWDER (v)
282kcal, $5.63, per 100g
A source of phytochemicals such as vitamin C, E and A, as well as phenolic compounds and carotenoids.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 63
24. FROZEN SPINACH (v)
29kcal, $1.35, per 100g
A salad crop especially high in magnesium, folate, vitamin A and the carotenoids beta carotene and zeazanthin. Freezing spinach helps prevent the nutrients within from degrading, which is why frozen spinach ranks higher than fresh spinach (no 45).
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 64
23. DANDELION GREENS (v)
45kcal, $0.27, per 100g
The word dandelion means lion’s tooth. The leaves are an excellent source of vitamin A, vitamin C and calcium.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 64
22. PINK GRAPEFRUIT (v)
42kcal, $0.27, per 100g
The red flesh of pink varieties is due to the accumulation of carotenoid and lycopene pigments.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 64
21. SCALLOPS
69kcal, $4.19, per 100g
A shellfish low in fat, high in protein, fatty acids, potassium and sodium.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 64
20. PACIFIC COD
72kcal, $3.18, per 100g
Closely related to Atlantic cod. Its livers are a significant source of fish oil rich in fatty acids and vitamin D.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 64
19. RED CABBAGE (v)
31kcal, $0.12, per 100g
Rich in vitamins. Its wild cabbage ancestor was a seaside plant of European or Mediterranean origin.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 65
18. GREEN ONION (v)
27kcal, $0.51, per 100g
Known as spring onions. High in copper, phosphorous and magnesium. One of the richest sources of vitamin K.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 65
17. ALASKA POLLOCK
92kcal, $3.67, per 100g
Also called walleye pollock, the species Gadus chalcogrammus is usually caught in the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. A low fat content of less than 1%.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 65
16. PIKE
88kcal, $3.67, per 100g
A fast freshwater predatory fish. Nutritious but pregnant women must avoid, due to mercury contamination.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 65
15. GREEN PEAS (v)
77kcal, $1.39, per 100g
Individual green peas contain high levels of phosphorous, magnesium, iron, zinc, copper and dietary fibre.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 67
14. TANGERINES (v)
53kcal, $0.29, per 100g
An oblate orange citrus fruit. High in sugar and the carotenoid cryptoxanthin, a precursor to vitamin A.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 67
13. WATERCRESS (v)
11kcal, $3.47, per 100g
Unique among vegetables, it grows in flowing water as a wild plant. Traditionally eaten to treat mineral deficiency.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 68
12. CELERY FLAKES (v)
319kcal, $6.10, per 100g
Celery that is dried and flaked to use as a condiment. An important source of vitamins, minerals and amino acids.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 68
11. DRIED PARSLEY (v)
292kcal, $12.46, per 100g
Parsley that is dried and ground to use as a spice. High in boron, fluoride and calcium for healthy bones and teeth.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 69
Sprinkling the occasional parsley on your meal could be a good idea
10. SNAPPER
100kcal, $3.75, per 100g
A family of mainly marine fish, with red snapper the best known. Nutritious but can carry dangerous toxins.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 69
9. BEET GREENS (v)
22kcal, $0.48, per 100g
The leaves of beetroot vegetables. High in calcium, iron, vitamin K and B group vitamins (especially riboflavin).
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 70
8. PORK FAT
632kcal, $0.95, per 100g
A good source of B vitamins and minerals. Pork fat is more unsaturated and healthier than lamb or beef fat.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 73
7. SWISS CHARD (v)
19kcal, $0.29, per 100g
A very rare dietary source of betalains, phytochemicals thought to have antioxidant and other health properties.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 78
6. PUMPKIN SEEDS (v)
559kcal, $1.60, per 100g
Including the seeds of other squashes. One of the richest plant-based sources of iron and manganese.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 84
5. CHIA SEEDS (v)
486kcal, $1.76, per 100g
Tiny black seeds that contain high amounts of dietary fibre, protein, a-linolenic acid, phenolic acid and vitamins.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 85
4. FLATFISH
70kcal, $1.15, per 100g
Sole and flounder species. Generally free from mercury and a good source of the essential nutrient vitamin B1.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 88
3. OCEAN PERCH
79kcal, $0.82, per 100g
The Atlantic species. A deep-water fish sometimes called rockfish. High in protein, low in saturated fats.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 89
2. CHERIMOYA (v)
75kcal, $1.84, per 100g
Cherimoya fruit is fleshy and sweet with a white pulp. Rich in sugar and vitamins A, C, B1, B2 and potassium.
NUTRITIONAL SCORE: 96
1. ALMONDS (v)
579kcal, $0.91, per 100g
Rich in mono-unsaturated fatty acids. Promote cardiovascular health and may help with diabetes.
posted by Davidblogger50 at 09:42 0 comments