Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

A friend recently blogged about her positive experience with Chia Seeds. I've been reading about them here and there, and while some of the benefits do sound good and quite relevant to my personal health struggles, I have to wonder why it isn't more popular (my metrics: "Have I heard of it?" and "How many Amazon reviews does it have?"). On one hand, a product that really works wonders should take off in a free market. On the other hand, people can be weird about looking for solutions outside of their cultural norms. Hookworm therapy, for example. I have another friend (a friend of the Board, really) whose husband has had incredible results with hookworm therapy (and there's plenty of evidence for the benefits besides my vague, anonymous anecdote). Yet he had to go to Mexico to get it done, because it's just too weird for America. I kinda feel like Quinoa is similar - foreign, we're not quite sure what to do with it, and yet it's a super healthy alternative to all the refined junk we eat every day. And amazingly, it's started to come under the public eye. Maybe it just had a good PR team and Chia Seeds don't?

So...what do you think? Does anybody have more personal experience with Chia Seeds? Is it obscure because it's quackery, or is it obscure because it's weird and most of the population doesn't care to change their eating habits? Any other recommendations for obscure miracle foods that I can obsessively research for an evening?

Was it the blog about using them for better hydration and how it cured her back pain? Cuz I read that, too. And has got me thinking more about chia seeds. I don't have any personal experiences with it, but I can tell you that Claudio (cook and med-student extraordinaire) was telling me a few months ago that he's been using them in cooking and really likes him. Maybe I'll tell him to come look at this next time I chat at him. Or do you know how to contact him to ask him directly?

Yep, the very blog.

Thanks, I will get in touch with him.

oh yeah, I am curious about those things too. Of course, I think a big problem with anything involving diet is that people want things to taste right and are wary of trying new things. Also, I wonder if the fact of paying more attention to one's diet in itself makes it healthier?

Also, I'm always a bit hesitant to jump into something until I've heard at least a seemingly plausible mechanism of action, and, (and here's the kicker) if it claims to have significant effects, I like to see contraindications. I've become much more sold on essential oils after taking a class on them and learning all the warnings. When I hear a pitch touting all the positives and implying that "all natural" means "side-effect free", I can't help that the only thing truly free of side effects is placebo.

So, Tao. What's the side effects of… spinach. Ready? Go!

OOOOOH! I know this one DL!

Green poo.

(Warning: mini-rant ahead.) Whenever I hear about some new "superfood," I'm pretty skeptical, because so many dietary fads are just that: fads. Also note that even superfoods that have been around for a while (for instance, the ones sold by Xango and Tahitian Noni) still have no solid evidence proving that they do anything for you aside from lighten your wallet. This didn't stop them from making claims of amazing medical properties, though, until the FDA stepped in and told them to cut it out.

Here's one question I would ask about any "superfood": Have there been multiple studies, published in reputable peer-reviewed medical journals by different research groups, showing significant health benefits? Is the scientific consensus that this food really has noticeable effects? (Note that I discount any research studies that were funded by someone who's trying to make money off the product.)

If there's multi-level marketing involved, my skepticism goes through the roof.

I also feel like often people go for something exotic simply because it's exotic, and thus more interesting than, say, eating lots of vegetables and less meat (which has been shown to actually have significant health benefits).

Finally, anecdotal evidence is completely insufficient, except possibly as a reason to conduct an actual scientific study. But it will not convince me that some product has the benefits claimed.

/rant

Laser Jock wrote:I also feel like often people go for something exotic simply because it's exotic, and thus more interesting than, say, eating lots of vegetables and less meat (which has been shown to actually have significant health benefits).

I find it amusing when new fads will tell you that you can lose weight "without diet or exercise," because they're essentially telling you that diet and exercise are actually your best (or most commonly prescribed) options.

okay, well let's find out about chia seeds.

It looks like chia seeds are a good source of omega-3s that don't have sugar in them: http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstr ... _of.9.aspx; "Under our conditions, Omega 3 Chia loading appears a viable option for enhancing performance for endurance events lasting >90 minutes and allows athletes to decrease their dietary intake of sugar while increasing their intake of Omega 3 fatty acids but offered no performance advantages."

In rabbits supplemented with chia seeds, "The polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) concentration in the longissimus dorsi muscle and perirenal fat was significantly increased with increasing SHS inclusion, while the saturated fatty acid (SFA) decreased. The n − 6/n − 3 PUFA ratio of the rabbit meat decreased from 4.55 in the control group, to 1.03 in the 15% SHS group." (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4008001472).

Tried to find the full text of this one, but failed: http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citat ... .2072.aspx. This study (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 170900089X) found that chia seeds didn't help weight loss in overweight adults or alter disease risk factors.

So, yeah, it's a food, but it's not going to work any miracles.

Whistler wrote:okay, well let's find out about chia seeds.

It looks like chia seeds are a good source of omega-3s that don't have sugar in them: http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/Abstr ... _of.9.aspx; "Under our conditions, Omega 3 Chia loading appears a viable option for enhancing performance for endurance events lasting >90 minutes and allows athletes to decrease their dietary intake of sugar while increasing their intake of Omega 3 fatty acids but offered no performance advantages."

In rabbits supplemented with chia seeds, "The polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) concentration in the longissimus dorsi muscle and perirenal fat was significantly increased with increasing SHS inclusion, while the saturated fatty acid (SFA) decreased. The n − 6/n − 3 PUFA ratio of the rabbit meat decreased from 4.55 in the control group, to 1.03 in the 15% SHS group." (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4008001472).

Tried to find the full text of this one, but failed: http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citat ... .2072.aspx. This study (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 170900089X) found that chia seeds didn't help weight loss in overweight adults or alter disease risk factors.

So, yeah, it's a food, but it's not going to work any miracles.

Yay, it's a food!

LJ, for what it's worth, they're not multi-level marketing like Xango or anything. You can buy them at any health store.

Katya wrote:I find it amusing when new fads will tell you that you can lose weight "without diet or exercise," because they're essentially telling you that diet and exercise are actually your best (or most commonly prescribed) options.

Haha. Yeah, that phrase is one that instantly tells me whatever product they're selling is bogus.

Dragon Lady wrote:LJ, for what it's worth, they're not multi-level marketing like Xango or anything. You can buy them at any health store.

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that these seeds met the all of the criteria I listed; I just included all of the things that are often associated with "superfoods" that I find sketchy. The rant was about "superfoods" in general, not these seeds specifically. Though I suspect they meet (or rather, fail to meet) some of the criteria, based on what Whistler found. (By the way, Whistler, thanks for stepping up and looking for studies! Nice work!)

Dragon Lady wrote:So, Tao. What's the side effects of… spinach. Ready? Go!

Heh, you knew I'd take you up on this...

Raw Spinach
Low in:
Saturated Fat (none)
Cholesterol (none).

Contains:
Niacin .2mg
Zinc .2mg

Good source of:
Dietary Fiber .7g
Protein .9g
Vitamin A 2813 IU (56% Daily Value/serving) Interesting contraindication here: "In people with renal failure, 4000 IU can cause substantial damage. In addition, excessive alcohol intake can increase toxicity. Children can reach toxic levels at 1,500 IU/kg of body weight. Toxic effects of vitamin A have been shown to significantly affect developing fetuses. The fetus is particularly sensitive to vitamin A toxicity during the period of organogenesis. Therapeutic doses used for acne treatment have been shown to disrupt cephalic neural cell activity." I presume that the 4k IU is supposed to be /kg as well, although it doesn't specify. The U.S. Institute of Medicine says that the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) for vitamin A, when taken over an extended period of time is 21,600 IU. Source Assuming no other sources of Vitamin A, that'd be a half pound of spinach daily to hit toxicity.
Vitamin C 8.4mg (14%DV/s)
Vitamin E (Alpha Tocopherol) .6mg
Vitamin K 145mcg (181% DV/s!)
Thiamin 2%DV/s
Riboflavin .1mg
Vitamin B6 .1mg
Folate 58.2mcg (15% DV/s) About 17 servings below the upper limit (those with cancerous preconditions may have lower UL, but that's debatable)
Calcium 29mg
Iron .8mg (while that is 5%DV/s, I had expected much more. C'mon spinach, you're not living up to your rep. Good on ya for that vit K though, dang.)
Magnesium 23.7mg Interesting that a 1/2 cup serving is listed as having 80g on wikipedia, whereas the site I pulled my numbers from has the 23.7 in one cup. Could well be the different density in cooked vs raw, but good to know.
Phosphorus 14.7mg
Potassium 167mg
Copper 2% DV/s
Manganese .3 mg (13% DV/s)

Considered high in Sodium. (at 24mg it is still fairly low compared to the average american diet, but that is 1/6th the AHA's recommended upper limit.)


Numbers pulled from this site.

So the side effects are for an excess of Vitamin A, correct? And that's only for people with pre-existing conditions? Doesn't sound so bad to me.

Oh LJ, I completely agree. I wasn't looking into Chia Seeds for a weight loss miracle or anything. I was looking at it specifically as an omega 3 supplement, a way to increase fiber that isn't metamucil, and that's about it. I'm looking at flax seed, too, but just wanted to check out my options. When I say "super foods," I realize that covers a lot of territory, including some quackery and some legitimately good stuff, like spinach and blueberries and such.

I recently listened to a podcast that interviewed the author of "The Science of Fat," which was pretty interesting (and quite anti-grain). But in the end I think the Word of Wisdom is probably the best diet guide there is.

Dragon Lady wrote:So the side effects are for an excess of Vitamin A, correct? And that's only for people with pre-existing conditions? Doesn't sound so bad to me.

Not bad at all, and all the health claims of spinach can be verified (still surprised at the iron though), all mechanisms of action of the various vitamins and minerals are relatively verified, and any contraindications can be easily researched. Compare that to Young Living, who touts their essential oils are 'pure enough to use on the skin' (as if purity has anything to do with cutaneous reaction) and that sprinkling a variety of hot (as in irritable) oils undiluted on the back can cure scoliosis, among other things. No contras, no methods of action; all bull in my opinion. The claims of Xango and other superfoods aren't usually that extreme, but they can get close.

Tao wrote:

Dragon Lady wrote:So the side effects are for an excess of Vitamin A, correct? And that's only for people with pre-existing conditions? Doesn't sound so bad to me.

Not bad at all, and all the health claims of spinach can be verified (still surprised at the iron though), all mechanisms of action of the various vitamins and minerals are relatively verified, and any contraindications can be easily researched. Compare that to Young Living, who touts their essential oils are 'pure enough to use on the skin' (as if purity has anything to do with cutaneous reaction) and that sprinkling a variety of hot (as in irritable) oils undiluted on the back can cure scoliosis, among other things. No contras, no methods of action; all bull in my opinion. The claims of Xango and other superfoods aren't usually that extreme, but they can get close.

You mean all this time I just needed to sprinkle oil on my back to get rid of my scoliosis? Ah, the wasted years I've spent without this priceless knowledge!

krebscout wrote:Oh LJ, I completely agree. I wasn't looking into Chia Seeds for a weight loss miracle or anything. I was looking at it specifically as an omega 3 supplement, a way to increase fiber that isn't metamucil, and that's about it. I'm looking at flax seed, too, but just wanted to check out my options. When I say "super foods," I realize that covers a lot of territory, including some quackery and some legitimately good stuff, like spinach and blueberries and such.

Sorry, I didn't want to accuse you (or them) of quackery. It sounds like they fit your want pretty well. I guess you found one of my pet peeves...I should do better about restraining myself sometimes.