As a response to health concerns and cost, the food industry has come up with a bevy of substitute food products. Through modern chemistry, we’ve been able to substitute our way out of fat, sugar, carbohydrates, costly ingredients, and short shelf lives. But when it comes to nutritional value and taste, which is better?
Butter vs. Margarine
Perhaps the best example of a “health” message having to eat its own words was the margarine-instead-of-butter campaign, championed by well-intentioned researchers and nutritionists. Their logic was that butter, which is high in saturated fat, contributes to heart disease, whereas margarine, low in saturated fat, provided a good substitute. However, it was then discovered that margarine contains the heart-sabotaging trans fats, which have been shown to raise bad cholesterol (LDL) and lower the good kind (HDL). Whoops.
With the dangers of trans fats coming to light, many food products now have trans fat-free alternatives. But are these any better? A small study in Nutrition and Metabolism indicates they may not be. Compared to a diet of palm oil (a natural source of saturated fat), a diet containing partially-hydrogenated soybean oil (which has trans fat) or soybean oil that was interesterified (the trans fat alternative) raised levels of LDL, lowered those of HDL, and elevated glucose levels.
The issue surrounding trans fat-free margarines containing alternatives (which are usually labeled as fully hydrogenated oils) is still unclear and needs more research. A better alternative to butter and margarine seems to be olive, canola, and other vegetable oils, which are naturally low in saturated fats, and high in mono and poly unsaturated fats. (Some margarine-like spreads are made from these, so check labels.)
And, when used sparingly, butter doesn’t have to be a villain. Its pros include a simple, natural list of ingredients (cream, salt); it tastes better than the fabricated stuff (I think); and a little goes a long way. Yes, it’s high in saturated fat and cholesterol, but compared with the trans fat problem and the yet-to-be-fully-researched alternatives that the food chemists might come up with, it might still have its place in our diet.
Sugars vs. Artificial Sweeteners
Is it better to drink a diet Coke, a regular Coke (which contains high fructose corn syrup, or HFCS), or a Coke in a bottle from abroad, where they use cane sugar?
From a calorie perspective, the choice (diet) is clear. But while artificial sweeteners are generally considered safe (save for saccharin, which has a “has been shown to cause cancer in lab rats” warning), two studies indicate they may not exactly be as guilt-free as once imagined.
The first study showed that, compared with those who drank no soda, people who consumed one or more sodas a day—diet or regular—had a 50 percent higher risk of metabolic syndrome, a group of risk factors characterized by excessive abdominal fat, high blood pressure, and high glucose. Another study showed that rats fed with foods containing artificial sweeteners were more likely to overeat compared with the rats that were fed food containing real sugar. Reason? Sugar triggers our innate system to recognize sweet calories and restrict further food consumption; fake chemicals don’t trigger the “eat less” mechanism.
And what about HFCS, which is ubiquitous in our food and has been vilified as a major contributor of obesity, versus sugar? Recently, the American Medical Association concluded that, based on current evidence, high fructose syrups do not contribute more to obesity than other caloric sweeteners, including sugar. Other researchers maintain that HFCS is metabolized differently by our bodies and may lead to compounds that contribute to diabetes and other health problems. One thing is for certain: both are sources of empty calories, which lead to weight gain.
