Why is that nitrates in processed meats are carcinogenic but nitrates in vegetables beets are supposedly beneficial eg in athletic performance?

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Nitrites require amino acids and high heat to turn into nitrosamines. Vegetables have less protein and are typically cooked at lower temperatures, reducing their relative risk.


Gotta differentiate a little bit here. Nitrates (NO3-) vs nitrites (NO2-) vs what – afaik- is benefitial is Nitrosamin (NO) as it leads to widening of arteries and venes for more throughout.


Looking at the numbers the WHO and IARC came up with, the link is very weak, and more propaganda than anything else. Also, at least here in the EU, meats with sodium nitrite added are required to contain antioxidants to inhibit nitrosamine formation.


It all comes down to nitrosamine formation. In reality, 80%+ of dietary nitrates are derived from vegetable origin. Nitrates are reduced to nitrite by the nitrate reducing bacteria residing on the dorsal surface of your tongue. Once nitrites are formed, they can react in acidic solution (e.g., gastric acid) in the absence of heat with various compounds including secondary and tertiary amines to form N-Nitroso compounds endogenously. With conventionally cured meats, erythorbate is required by law to be added to reduce nitrite to nitric oxide to react with myoglobin to form the red pigment associated with cured meat (nitric oxide myoglobin) rather than reacting with secondary/ tertiary amines, etc. to form nitrosamines. From this perspective, conventionally cured meats are actually fairly safe from a toxicology standpoint – even when compared to nitrates from vegetable origin. Moreover, those following certain diets, such as DASH, for example, may exceed the ADI for nitrate by 550%+.

Uncured meats, however, do not have erythorbate included and can result in much higher residual nitrite contents which is directly linked to nitrosamine formation.


not an aswer to this question but at this point idgaf about what causes cancer or not except for smoking and sunbathing without solar cream, bc anything can cause me cancer in this life. just try not to abuse certain things and that´s all.


how many hours do oats need to be soaked for to remove antinutrients

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Okay, I’m a pretty educated man, but what the hell is an anti nutrient?


Unless for medical reasons, the anti nutrients in oats really shouldnt be something to worry about, as there is such a tiny amount in them and in moderation offer you no harm. As long as your diet is mixed and varied you’ll be okay.
Commonly, anti nutrients can be found naturally occurring in most fibrous fruits/veggies as well as wholegrains, and contribute to a happy and healthy diet.
But to answer your question, soaking over night will remove 20% of these types of nutrients, this is about as much as you’ll be able to remove. Id honestly heat them after because they simply taste better, but thats your call 🙂


The health benefits of eating the fibrous veggies and whole grains that contain a very small amount of anti-nutrients greatly outweighs any potential negative. Don’t worry about it, just soak it to your preferred consistency.


I read “oats” as “cats” and was a bit bewildered.


Isn’t it funny how we want to alter rice to make its starches more resistant and less absorbent. But also oats, we want those to be more absorbable. I get that everyone has goals but in the end we’re so focused on optimization.


**Big heads up for all those who consume & cook with avocado oil** Study Finds 82 Percent of Avocado Oil Rancid or Mixed With Other Oils

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

For you Costco shoppers, from the article:
>Only two brands produced samples that were pure and nonoxidized. Those were Chosen Foods and Marianne’s Avocado Oil, both refined avocado oils made in Mexico. Among the virgin grades, CalPure produced in California was pure and fresher than the other samples in the same grade.

We’ve bought Chosen Foods avocado oil from Costco for years and use a lot of it… glad to see quality is what we thought!


This has been a big problem with olive oil for years. I’m not surprised to find it here too.


so basically, the ingridients can show: 100% Avocado oil, and it will actually be mixed oils?


This applies to ALL imported oil. Olive oil especially is almost always a mix of oils from different European countries. A Greek friend shared with me that her family in Greece actually produces their own olive oil but the industry is greatly run by the mafia–I encourage more research into this, but as always there is NO ethical consumption under capitalism.


Anyone has anything similar on EVOO? I think this happened because avocado oil is a “new” oil. I usually trust olive Oils but am not sure


Tiktok “nutritionists”

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Well to me, the very thought of looking to Tiktok for education or guidance on anything other than flailing your arms around for 15 seconds seems legitimately insane in the first place.


The “V Shred” guy all over Instagram has to be the worst I have seen. Almost 90% of what he says is absolutely false or based on pseudoscience. I cannot escape this loser and his advertisements no matter how hard I try.

I have a bachelors degree in human physiology and nutrition, this guy makes my skin crawl.


In many places “nutritionist” isn’t a protected title, so you can have 0 schooling and call yourself a nutritionist. Follow accounts run by registered dietitian (RD) or registered dietitian nutritionists (the registration is key!). RD’s have 4+ years of education, and are accountable to a college, which makes it pretty much illegal to spread misinformation


“TikTok Nutritionists”… that made me laugh out loud.


Every time someone starts a tik tok with “I’m a _____ student” I scroll on. My favorite is a 1L who makes tik toks acting like some legal scholar. Calm down honey, you’re a fetus. You don’t know shit about the law. I’ve been practicing for 13 years and still wouldn’t be making arm chair tik toks acting like some kind of legal guru. The ego on some of these people…


Is eating raw chickpeas dangerous?

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

It isn’t like eating undercooked kidney beans which are toxic, but it may not be the easiest on your stomach. And it certainly won’t taste pleasant.

But you have been cooking for over an hour and they are still not soft at all? That is a bit unusual.

I am curious why you boiled them for one minute only?

There are quick soak methods you can find that will save you time overall.


As a chickpea lover I can testify that I’m in love with my Instapot


As others has said, it’s not dangerous, the texture of the sauce might be a bit off since the chickpeas aren’t fully cooked. Boiling them for one minute is certainly not enough to make them soft. If you think it’s too much work with the dried chickpeas, you can try the canned version instead, no soaking and boiling required.


They have much less hemagglutinin than kidney beans, however, why not just cook them completely? If you’re cooking them in an acid sauce (tomatoes, lemon, vinegar, etc.) then it will be a slow process, but they’ll get there eventually. Either that or throw them away. Eating undercooked dried beans can’t be very pleasant.

Beans don’t have to be soaked before cooking. I find that the cook more evenly when they are soaked, but it’s not a required step.


Raw legumes in general have a level of toxicity that if consumed in large quantities can be harmful.

These proteins are tough on the digestion causing gas, bloating and gastro-intestinal discomfort. They are broken down by cooking and heat.

Eating raw legumes isn’t enjoyable anyways, so we soak them (which helps to denature the proteins more, as well as help reduce the cooking time) before we cook them and eat them.

After soaking for 5 hours (should have done for at least 8hrs) and then boiling the chick peas for only a minute (should have for at least 45-60min) on their own is not sufficient enough to cook them, or even remotely make them palatable.

However you’ve had them continuing to cook in a sauce for over an hour. The proteins in the chick peas are probably denatured enough to no longer be toxic, and should not be dangerous to consume, though they probably aren’t going to be very palatable and enjoyable to eat.

You may as well add some more water to the pot, cover it, turn up the heat to a more rigorous boil and let it cook longer until the chick peas turn soft enough to be enjoyable eat.


How do we educate people on nutrition without being forceful and in away they can make actual changes?

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

You can only educate those who are willing to listen and learn.

Unsolicited advice on nutrition and diets can easily become annoying to a lot of people. The best thing to do is wait until someone expresses that they have a problem, issue, symptom, etc. and offer your opinions and advice then.


I have found it much more effective to tell them the better choices. Not to take away foods, but to substitute. This not that.
People go into a deprivation mentality as soon as something is taken away. But, when presented a better choice they shift and become proactive in the choice.


Who are you looking to educate?


I think it is unfortunately not enough just to educate.

You need to consider the individual (so education is good here, and personal preferences and what they grew up on)

But you also need to consider their social, and biological environment.

What are their friends doing? what is the media saying? How accessible is cooking/finding better food choices? Are they far away from larger food shops?

And then add to this that change can be really hard! Especially if food is a comfort. We have primal parts of our brain that REALLY hate change and latch on to things that it knows have brought us comfort before…and add that to a stressful time when some people need some comfort!


Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but what really made an impression on me and the turning point for my diet is when I read somewhere “Eat to fuel your body, not to fill your stomach.” A simple quote as that is dramatically changed how I view food.
Now when I get hungry, I see it as “time to fuel up” instead of “what can I scrounge up to eat”


Is Beyond Meat/Impossible Meat unhealthy?

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

I don’t think there’s any evidence that GMOs are unhealthy for people (whether or not they are unhealthy for agriculture/the agriculture industry is a different story). But, setting that aside, I think most people would agree Beyond Meat and other mock meats are not healthy. They are heavily processed and the macro & micro nutrient profile is weak for the calories. I believe most also have a lot of sodium. I’m not saying never have them. I eat them sometimes, but I wouldn’t eat them daily or anything. I eat probably 90% vegan and I try to rarely eat the mock meats (tofu/tempeh/beans instead)


GMOs are absolutely fine.

The macro nutrient profiles of these vegan burgers aren’t ideal. You shouldn’t eat them any more than you would eat a normal burger.


Just 👏 because 👏 somethings 👏 vegan 👏 doesnt 👏 make 👏 it 👏 healthy👏


GMOs are not all “stick a needle into a tomato to change its DNA”. A lot of GMOs are like dogs you see these days; they are bred for the desired traits. Like a golden retriever and a poodle breeding to get a golden doodle, it’s the same as plants (of course how they breed is different but you get my drift). In terms of mock meat being unhealthy, they are definitely highly processed with a lot of sodium. You are better off making your own vegan patties through black beans, chickpeas etc. If you want a patty, go for the pre made veggie patties over mock meats


i just tried the impossible burger and was thinking it would def be a super unhealthy, once a year type deal but looking it up i was surprised that the sodium wasnt atrocious and it had decent calories and great protein for me (as someone who mostly eats plant-based and doesn’t often eat meat replacements) .. based on the decent nutrition i would bump it up to a bimonthly treat max.. its pretty damn expensive too


What are some of the most misleading and sensational news stories you’ve ever seen?

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

“Were we wrong about calories”. No, we weren’t wrong. People just misunderstand the energy balance equation, have trouble being consistent in our current food environment, and want there to be a villain other than themselves.

“We’re overweight because of insulin”. Not really. We are overweight because we eat more than ever and move less than ever. I’m not saying that’s the advice you give but that certainly is the cause.

And I’ll take my certain downvotes because this sub in many cases seems to support articles like those. I mean, the person calling out Game Changers is getting downvoted. What non-evidence based nutrition world are we living in? It’s insane when you think about it. The food version of flat earthers pretending to be the “woke” ones.


That drinking a glass of wine is equivalent to 30 minutes of cardiovascular exercise. The headline came from a study that used one element (that is also found in wine) in mice and found minor heart benefits. The article failed to mention that same element is found in grape juice as well and that alcohol basically negates any (unlikely) benefits and that people are not mice.


Not a new story, but basically the majority of the Game Changers documentary


Some foods are declared as “Healthy” and “Unhealthy”, even though everything can be enjoyed in moderation as a healthy lifestyle!


News based on epidemiological studies.

Coffee GOOD, coffee BAD! Butter GOOD, butter BAD! And you can probably do that for every food item on the planet if studies were to be conducted. (exaggerating a bit but still..)

Dive into the mechanism yourself, read some studies, form your own opinion on things, and then when you find news on whatever you’ll quickly be able to call bull on them or not.

Also keep learning from whatever you read. Many things I thought were true turned out to be more varied or wrong in the end, and there’s also things we keep learning or discovering. Thinking you know everything about something is bad.

Oh, and also keep in mind news are made for you to CLICK on them, so the headlines are always made so you click on them and get curious, angry or anything to get that click and preferably share.

E.g. “Strawberries potentially bad if consumption is over 300g daily” vs “NEW STUDY REVEALS STRAWBERRIES WILL KILL YOU EARLIER!” (Just random titles, but I’ve seen similar before)