Hi everyone! It has definitely been awhile... I am deep in my graduate program and seem to have less time to research food and health.
I wanted to share an amazing link from the Whole Health Source, a blog by Stephan Guyenet. Even over the past few months, my ideas about what is healthy and natural have changed. Dr. Guyenet is a proponent of the Food Reward Hypothesis, which the link discusses in depth. It's a bit long, but it is definitely worth the read. From what I understand, the more "rewarding" and the higher the palatability of foods, the more likely we are to eat them in excess, which in turn causes us to gain weight through excess calories and metabolic disruption. It is a very interesting hypothesis, and I'm starting to believe it more and more. These types of foods would include all processed foods, sugar, flour - basically anything that has chemicals added to increase the flavor, or any food that has been processed down so much to make it easily digestible so that one can consume thousands of calories without blinking.
Here is the link again: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/10/case-for-food-reward-hypothesis-of_07.html
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Conflicts of Interest
Wikipedia says, "A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other." (Those are my italics for emphasis.) A conflict of interest exists whether or not the organization is corrupted by a tie to a company; if the possibility is there, it is defined as a conflict of interest regardless. This is definitely a touchy, convoluted topic. One of my friends commented on an example of this in a comment to my previous post - physicians often receive compensation for recommending certain drugs to patients. The potential for "possible corruption" here is huge. Another example in biomedical engineering would be if a research institution is determining if a new company's implant performs just as well or better than an implant already on the market, if the institution is receiving extra funds from the company who manufactures the implant. In the world of health food, conflicts of interest arise as well. In Good Calories, Bad Calories, Taubes refers to an incident where Fred Stare, founder and chair of the department of nutrition at Harvard, announced to Congress the benefits of breakfast cereals, after which the Harvard School of Public Health received about $200,000 from Kellogg, Nabisco, and others. Of course Harvard is going to want to continue to generate positive results about cereal grains! This may influence their study design, statistical analysis, among other things.
These conflicts of interest with companies are probably not too surprising. As a graduate student in biomedical engineering, I have the opportunity to present my research at conferences, where many share their work as a poster or at a podium presentation. On the first day, everyone receives a booklet that contains the abstracts for every single research project at the conference. In it, on the posters, and during the presentations, scientists are required to list any "disclosures," which would include conflicts of interest such as the ones I described above. I always think of these as some type of disclaimer, and I hope that peer reviewers look at these studies more closely, especially how the data was collected and interpreted, to be sure that there isn't any bias before they are published and the results reach the general public. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's always the case...
Recently, a good friend shared this link: The NIH will not require universities to create websites detailing researchers' financial ties. This is going to make it more difficult for the public to find out what conflicts of interest universities have. Also, we won't be able to easily study how conflicts of interest can impact research results, an area that I think definitely needs massive attention.
The thing I don't understand is how funding from the government is not generally considered a conflict of interest. The National Institute of Health (NIH) boasts to be the largest source of funding for medical research in the world. To get funding from them, you have to submit grants that show extensive background research in the area, novel experimental methods, preliminary data (sometimes), and expected outcomes. The thing is, the government clearly has an agenda, just as any hip implant or pharmaceutical company. For instance, the government has taken a clear stance on spades of nutritional advice - limit total fat intake to 30% of calories, limit saturated fat to no more than 10% of total calories, choose vegetable spreads instead of butter, replace saturated fats with unsaturated fats whenever possible, eat whole grains instead of refined grains, eat egg white instead of the entire egg... I could go on and on. Now, do you think they would have any chance funding a large study that tries to disprove any of the previous advice? If a grant were submitted that outlined all of the research done that opposes these ideas, and even if they had a great study design that would hopefully reveal some interesting results, do you think they would receive funding?
I doubt it. So much for the scientific method and unbiased research for the benefit of the people.
These conflicts of interest with companies are probably not too surprising. As a graduate student in biomedical engineering, I have the opportunity to present my research at conferences, where many share their work as a poster or at a podium presentation. On the first day, everyone receives a booklet that contains the abstracts for every single research project at the conference. In it, on the posters, and during the presentations, scientists are required to list any "disclosures," which would include conflicts of interest such as the ones I described above. I always think of these as some type of disclaimer, and I hope that peer reviewers look at these studies more closely, especially how the data was collected and interpreted, to be sure that there isn't any bias before they are published and the results reach the general public. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's always the case...
Recently, a good friend shared this link: The NIH will not require universities to create websites detailing researchers' financial ties. This is going to make it more difficult for the public to find out what conflicts of interest universities have. Also, we won't be able to easily study how conflicts of interest can impact research results, an area that I think definitely needs massive attention.
The thing I don't understand is how funding from the government is not generally considered a conflict of interest. The National Institute of Health (NIH) boasts to be the largest source of funding for medical research in the world. To get funding from them, you have to submit grants that show extensive background research in the area, novel experimental methods, preliminary data (sometimes), and expected outcomes. The thing is, the government clearly has an agenda, just as any hip implant or pharmaceutical company. For instance, the government has taken a clear stance on spades of nutritional advice - limit total fat intake to 30% of calories, limit saturated fat to no more than 10% of total calories, choose vegetable spreads instead of butter, replace saturated fats with unsaturated fats whenever possible, eat whole grains instead of refined grains, eat egg white instead of the entire egg... I could go on and on. Now, do you think they would have any chance funding a large study that tries to disprove any of the previous advice? If a grant were submitted that outlined all of the research done that opposes these ideas, and even if they had a great study design that would hopefully reveal some interesting results, do you think they would receive funding?
I doubt it. So much for the scientific method and unbiased research for the benefit of the people.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Our Diet Journey
Awhile back, my cousin asked me what my 3-5 top recommended diet changes were. I ended up writing a novel for her, and it made me reflect upon how far we have come in improving our diet. The now modified list is below:
Roasted vegetables from last week:
However, it can be quite a challenge, and making these changes was a gradual process. To make all these changes at once would be ridiculously overwhelming. This kind of diet does require more preparation and planning since you are using whole foods, but the investment is worth it. There are ways to lighten the burden, too. At the beginning of the week, I cut up enough vegetables for 7 days of salads, for example. Also, I cook in bulk and we have no problem eating leftovers. That being said, there are tons of improvements to make, and we still do indulge! We will buy some dark chocolate when I'm craving it, and I just cannot stop baking homemade desserts entirely. Also, last week we ordered pizza even though we looked up Papa John's ingredients and saw that there was vegetable oil...
Sometimes people ask me what I typically eat in a day. For this month, we are keeping food diaries in a shared Google document, so here is what I ate yesterday:
1) Eliminate processed food
2) Reduce refined sugar and carbohydrate intake
3) Stop consuming vegetable/seed oils, including but not limited to: canola, sunflower, soy, corn, safflower, cottonseed, grapeseed (Good alternatives: butter, lard, and if you must, olive oil, coconut oil, palm oil)
4) Eat pasture-raised, organic, local beef, chicken, and eggs (if you eat animal products)
5) Increase food variety! Try all kinds of vegetables, organ meats, etc.
In addition to these, Alex and I eat organic, locally grown vegetables and unpasteurized,non-homogenized milk from a local farm. We have salad and usually other vegetables every day. We also limit our carbohydrate intake, but do still eat potatoes, sweet potatoes, and sometimes rice and Ezekiel bread made from sprouted grains. Alex notices that without carbohydrates, it's hard for him to get enough to eat, so I think he may eat slightly more than I do. Furthermore, we aren't afraid of saturated fat and cholesterol. Our typical Saturday breakfast is bacon and eggs from the farmer's market, with some Ezekiel toast. Saturated fat and cholesterol actually keep us fuller, requiring us to eat less over time as we get used to it. It's a great feeling to look in my pantry, and not see ANY cookies, crackers, potato chips, corn chips, cereal, boxed mac & cheese, triscuits, salad dressing with vegetable oils, sugary candies, granola, protein bars...
Roasted vegetables from last week:
However, it can be quite a challenge, and making these changes was a gradual process. To make all these changes at once would be ridiculously overwhelming. This kind of diet does require more preparation and planning since you are using whole foods, but the investment is worth it. There are ways to lighten the burden, too. At the beginning of the week, I cut up enough vegetables for 7 days of salads, for example. Also, I cook in bulk and we have no problem eating leftovers. That being said, there are tons of improvements to make, and we still do indulge! We will buy some dark chocolate when I'm craving it, and I just cannot stop baking homemade desserts entirely. Also, last week we ordered pizza even though we looked up Papa John's ingredients and saw that there was vegetable oil...
Sometimes people ask me what I typically eat in a day. For this month, we are keeping food diaries in a shared Google document, so here is what I ate yesterday:
Breakfast:
yogurt from raw milk, 1/2 cup
cocoa almonds
Lunch:
taco meat made from grass-fed, pasture-raised, local ground beef
liver from grass-fed, pasture-raised, local farm
cheddar cheese
hot salsa
peach
Snack:
10 carrots
1 pickle
9 dark hershey kisses
Dinner:
BIG salad with 2 kinds of lettuce, 2 hard-boiled eggs, 3-bean salad, red peppers, carrots, green peppers, tomatoes, and a homemade salad dressing of olive oil, vinegar, and some spices
one potato, sliced thinly and cooked with butter and cajun seasoning
raw milk, 1.5 cups
some steamed beet greens
Dessert:
1 cup of homemade chocolate peanut butter ice cream (made with raw milk and half the sugar it recommended)
Yes, so I definitely have a snacking weakness, especially where chocolate and ice cream are concerned. I'm hoping that keeping the food diary will help with this, as I will be accountable for every piece of food that goes into my mouth.
I'm also excited because recently I had blood work done for a life insurance policy. Here are some of the results:
Glucose: 82
Cholesterol: 182
HDL: 82
LDL: 91
LDL/HDL ratio: 1.11 <--- awesome!!
Triglycerides: 44
Exciting! I'm glad to know that my diet in my life up until now hasn't been too detrimental. I have my mother to thank, who breast-fed exclusively for months and months when we were babies, who always cooked hearty dinners of meat, potatoes, and vegetables, who limited our sugar intake, and didn't let us just snack until our hearts' content, and who made us drink milk instead of giving in to soda. My blood was drawn back in March, I think, and so I'm really looking forward to see if the numbers change over time as we continue to improve our diet.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Good Calories, Bad Calories
I have begun reading Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health by Gary Taubes. I've only read about 90 pages or so, but I have to say, it is a must read and my favorite book on the history of the diet-heart hypothesis, animal vs. plant foods, carbohydrates, etc. so far. I am a little disappointed in the references, however. Don't misunderstand - there are about a million of them, but they aren't in the text, making it difficult to find the exact reference he is using to back up a sentence or paragraph. This makes my job a little more time-consuming, but oh well. The amount of information is overwhelming and addicting! Such a meaty book.
One of the most interesting things I've read so far is how difficult it is to design a diet clinical trial. Many studies in the past have tried to prove that diets high in saturated fat increase cholesterol levels and increase the risk of heart disease. At first glance, it seems pretty easy - feed one group of people some normal diet, and feed another group of people the same diet but with added saturated fat and see what happens. The problem with this is that we don't know whether any effects we see will be from the extra saturated fat, the extra calories, or some ratio of fat to carbs, omega-3 to omega-6, etc, etc. If instead we choose to keep total calories the same, then the group who is not eating lots of saturated fat has to have something to fill its place - complex carbohydrates, polyunsaturated fats, and so on. Taubes argues that it is almost impossible to conduct a double-blinded, placebo trial for food. It's interesting, makes perfect sense, but it's not something I had ever thought about before.
Another big problem with large clinical trials, and really much science for that matter, is that scientists tend to ignore negative results, and run statistical analyses with an intended outcome in mind. This is how results become skewed, and it goes entirely against the scientific method. For example, Taubes discusses the Nurses Health Study by Willett, published in 1987 in the New England Journal of Medicine. This study was trying to prove that increased fat consumption increased breast cancer risk. However, the study showed no evidence of that. When the nurses were followed up in 1992, then in 1999, it was shown that those who actually ate MORE saturated fat had a LOWER risk of breast cancer. "For every 5 percent of saturated fat calories that replaced carbohydrates in the diet, the risk of breast cancer decreased by 9 percent." However, this study went rather unnoticed, as most studies that reveal results opposite common dogma. People will keep running studies until they get the results they want, and anything contrary is brushed aside as misleading, or lacking something. And doctors will still recommend that women eat less saturated fat, even though breast cancer rates are rising ridiculously AND the fact that none of the clinical trials studying the saturated fat-heart disease link had women subjects before this diet started being recommended for women.
Lastly, for my little tidbit. As everyone knows, not all fat is created equal: there are saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats, which can be broken down into more categories. The same is true for carbohydrates: a potato, a slice of white bread, and triscuits from a box are not all the same. I don't understand why the food pyramid and health specialists ever started to look at food in terms of servings, as if eating 3 apples every day would satisfy your "fruit requirement" and that it was the same as eating a variety of fruits all the time. I get so angry when I hear commercials about fruit juices that have "two servings of fruit and a full serving of vegetables in each glass." What does that even MEAN?? Food is much more complicated than just calories from fat, cabohydrates, and protein. Our bodies are so much more complex, requiring hundreds of minerals, vitamins, co-factors... many of which can disrupted or completely removed during harsh food processing. I'm convinced that eating a wide variety of foods closets to their natural states is the best way to ensure that you are actually ingesting everything your body needs. I think people are slowly starting to realize this, as we kind of re-discover the amazing potential and contents of "super foods."
Another big problem with large clinical trials, and really much science for that matter, is that scientists tend to ignore negative results, and run statistical analyses with an intended outcome in mind. This is how results become skewed, and it goes entirely against the scientific method. For example, Taubes discusses the Nurses Health Study by Willett, published in 1987 in the New England Journal of Medicine. This study was trying to prove that increased fat consumption increased breast cancer risk. However, the study showed no evidence of that. When the nurses were followed up in 1992, then in 1999, it was shown that those who actually ate MORE saturated fat had a LOWER risk of breast cancer. "For every 5 percent of saturated fat calories that replaced carbohydrates in the diet, the risk of breast cancer decreased by 9 percent." However, this study went rather unnoticed, as most studies that reveal results opposite common dogma. People will keep running studies until they get the results they want, and anything contrary is brushed aside as misleading, or lacking something. And doctors will still recommend that women eat less saturated fat, even though breast cancer rates are rising ridiculously AND the fact that none of the clinical trials studying the saturated fat-heart disease link had women subjects before this diet started being recommended for women.
Lastly, for my little tidbit. As everyone knows, not all fat is created equal: there are saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fats, which can be broken down into more categories. The same is true for carbohydrates: a potato, a slice of white bread, and triscuits from a box are not all the same. I don't understand why the food pyramid and health specialists ever started to look at food in terms of servings, as if eating 3 apples every day would satisfy your "fruit requirement" and that it was the same as eating a variety of fruits all the time. I get so angry when I hear commercials about fruit juices that have "two servings of fruit and a full serving of vegetables in each glass." What does that even MEAN?? Food is much more complicated than just calories from fat, cabohydrates, and protein. Our bodies are so much more complex, requiring hundreds of minerals, vitamins, co-factors... many of which can disrupted or completely removed during harsh food processing. I'm convinced that eating a wide variety of foods closets to their natural states is the best way to ensure that you are actually ingesting everything your body needs. I think people are slowly starting to realize this, as we kind of re-discover the amazing potential and contents of "super foods."
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Be An Informed Consumer
PediaSure supposedly can help fill nutritional gaps in children who are picky eaters. The website claims "#1 Pediatrician Recommended Brand" and "complete balanced nutrition." The first 3 ingredients? Water, sugar, corn maltodextrin. Give me a break. Go here for the rest of the ingredients, which also include health-detrimental, omega-6 heavy, inflammation-inducing, oxidative stress-raising safflower and corn oil. The minerals and vitamins that are supposed to supplement your child's health are all in there, too. How is this different than giving them the industrially processed food picky eaters love (which is also loaded with sugar, corn, and seed oils) and supplementing with a gummy one-a-day vitamin?
Have you seen the commercial where a mother says, "you are what you eat" as her friends' kids appear on the soccer field as french fries and doughnuts? Why isn't her child shaped as sugar and vegetable oil? What pediatricians are recommending this drink?
Reading nutrition labels can be tricky business, and many items on the ingredients list are unrecognizable. As everyone probably knows, ingredients are listed in ascending order of weight. But one example of a tricky situation is when there are multiple kinds of sugar in a single product - corn syrup, sucrose, etc, etc. Sugar might be far down in the ingredients list, but when there are multiple kinds, they can add up to a significant portion of what's in the food. I've heard some rumors about new nutrition labels that will put ingredients into categories, so that you know how much of a product is actually "sugar" by lumping them all together. For now, here is a great list of other names for sugar of which you might not be aware.
Reading nutrition labels can be tricky business, and many items on the ingredients list are unrecognizable. As everyone probably knows, ingredients are listed in ascending order of weight. But one example of a tricky situation is when there are multiple kinds of sugar in a single product - corn syrup, sucrose, etc, etc. Sugar might be far down in the ingredients list, but when there are multiple kinds, they can add up to a significant portion of what's in the food. I've heard some rumors about new nutrition labels that will put ingredients into categories, so that you know how much of a product is actually "sugar" by lumping them all together. For now, here is a great list of other names for sugar of which you might not be aware.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Genetic Susceptibility to Disease
In the early days of DNA research, it was believed that your DNA sequence determined everything about you, from your eye color, to your personality, to your susceptibility to disease, etc. From one angle, this is true. You cannot change an adenine nucleotide to a guanine in an adult's entire genome (at least not yet), but genetic science has led us to the realization that how genes are expressed can be altered throughout a person's life and have effects on subsequent generations (1).
Now, I do not claim to be an expert on this at all. I only know the basics - your DNA has specific nucleotide sequence sections called genes, which, when activated or "expressed" result in protein products that direct other cellular activities. (Disclaimer: This is a gross simplification. I am just learning this all myself.) What I have been quite interested in lately and wanted to bring up in this post, however, is epigenetics: the study of how gene expression can be altered in ways that do not involve changes in the DNA sequence.
There are some interesting examples of this phenomenon.
Decreased birthweights in infants after maternal in utero exposure to the Dutch famine of 1944-1945 (2). This study looked at females who were in utero during the Dutch famine from Nov 1944 to May 1945. The babies who were exposed to famine during 1st and 2nd trimesters had lower birthweights than their non-famine controls. This is not too surprising. What is more interesting is that the children of these females who were exposed to famine in utero also had decreased birthweight, compared to the children of the controls.
Maternal and grandmaternal smoking patterns are associated with early childhood asthma (3). This study shows that children whose mothers smoked while pregnant were 1.6 times more likely to develop asthma than those who had non-smoking mothers. Again, not too surprising. But, this effect is magnified - grandchildren of the smoking, pregnant moms were 2.1 times more likely to develop asthma. Clearly, something else is going on.
Today, it seems that every disease has some sort of genetic component: heart disease, obesity, cancer, you name it. And the occurrences of these diseases are only on the rise. Some statistics..... If they do indeed have such a strong genetic disposition, and gene expression can be changed by diet and lifestyle, then I would have to conclude that we are all screwing up our genes and it is only going to get worse with our children and grandchildren.
This is why I urge everyone to really think about his/her daily life, the acts that we do that may be influencing our gene expression. Lifestyle, stress, exercise, and food all play an important role on how we feel, and probably how our bodies respond. I would argue that food is of the utmost importance. After all (I'll say it again!), you are what you eat. A species can withstand famine or a crappy diet for quite some time, as human bodies are adept, efficient, and resourceful. However, subsequent generations will suffer if the diet isn't fixed.
Take care of your genes. I know that my food and health endeavors can seem crazy, but all I think is that people should make an effort to learn about what they are actually ingesting, and then make their own decisions. I welcome debate - together maybe we can dig deeper and really discover the secret to a health that we can proudly pass down to our children and grandchildren.
References:
1. Cummings JA, Clemens LG, Nunez AA. Mother counts: how effects of environmental contaminants on maternal care could affect the offspring and future generations. Front Neuroendocrinol. 2010 Oct;31(4):440-51.
2. Lumey LH. Decreased birthweights in infants after maternal in utero exposure to the Dutch famine of 1944-1945. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1992 Apr;6(2):240-53.
3. Li YF, Langholz B, Salam MT, Gilliland FD. Maternal and grandmaternal smoking patterns are associated with early childhood asthma. Chest. 2005 Apr;127(4):1232-41.
Now, I do not claim to be an expert on this at all. I only know the basics - your DNA has specific nucleotide sequence sections called genes, which, when activated or "expressed" result in protein products that direct other cellular activities. (Disclaimer: This is a gross simplification. I am just learning this all myself.) What I have been quite interested in lately and wanted to bring up in this post, however, is epigenetics: the study of how gene expression can be altered in ways that do not involve changes in the DNA sequence.
There are some interesting examples of this phenomenon.
Decreased birthweights in infants after maternal in utero exposure to the Dutch famine of 1944-1945 (2). This study looked at females who were in utero during the Dutch famine from Nov 1944 to May 1945. The babies who were exposed to famine during 1st and 2nd trimesters had lower birthweights than their non-famine controls. This is not too surprising. What is more interesting is that the children of these females who were exposed to famine in utero also had decreased birthweight, compared to the children of the controls.
Maternal and grandmaternal smoking patterns are associated with early childhood asthma (3). This study shows that children whose mothers smoked while pregnant were 1.6 times more likely to develop asthma than those who had non-smoking mothers. Again, not too surprising. But, this effect is magnified - grandchildren of the smoking, pregnant moms were 2.1 times more likely to develop asthma. Clearly, something else is going on.
Today, it seems that every disease has some sort of genetic component: heart disease, obesity, cancer, you name it. And the occurrences of these diseases are only on the rise. Some statistics..... If they do indeed have such a strong genetic disposition, and gene expression can be changed by diet and lifestyle, then I would have to conclude that we are all screwing up our genes and it is only going to get worse with our children and grandchildren.
This is why I urge everyone to really think about his/her daily life, the acts that we do that may be influencing our gene expression. Lifestyle, stress, exercise, and food all play an important role on how we feel, and probably how our bodies respond. I would argue that food is of the utmost importance. After all (I'll say it again!), you are what you eat. A species can withstand famine or a crappy diet for quite some time, as human bodies are adept, efficient, and resourceful. However, subsequent generations will suffer if the diet isn't fixed.
Take care of your genes. I know that my food and health endeavors can seem crazy, but all I think is that people should make an effort to learn about what they are actually ingesting, and then make their own decisions. I welcome debate - together maybe we can dig deeper and really discover the secret to a health that we can proudly pass down to our children and grandchildren.
References:
1. Cummings JA, Clemens LG, Nunez AA. Mother counts: how effects of environmental contaminants on maternal care could affect the offspring and future generations. Front Neuroendocrinol. 2010 Oct;31(4):440-51.
2. Lumey LH. Decreased birthweights in infants after maternal in utero exposure to the Dutch famine of 1944-1945. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 1992 Apr;6(2):240-53.
3. Li YF, Langholz B, Salam MT, Gilliland FD. Maternal and grandmaternal smoking patterns are associated with early childhood asthma. Chest. 2005 Apr;127(4):1232-41.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Homemade Yogurt from Raw Milk
My apologies for the recent lack of posts. I was in NYC for research-related things, then in Sydney, Australia for a couple weeks for more research, then I went on vacation with my family in NC, and then I attended 3 weddings in 7 days. Needless to say, I've been quite busy, but I will try to get back on track.
Ever since buying raw milk, we have been researching about using it to make other products, such as butter, yogurt, and whey. We eat yogurt basically every day for breakfast, with almonds (my favorite are the Emerald cocoa roast almonds) and other nuts and berries, but we never really thought about making our own. When we visited Scheffler Farm to buy our first gallon of raw milk, Eileen urged us to try making our own yogurt, claiming it was ridiculously easy. She referred us to Get Foodie! (http://getfoodieshow.com/) and told us to watch Episode 11 to learn.
To make yogurt, all you need is to warm up some milk, then cool it a bit, add a tad of yogurt to start the culture growing, and keep it warm for an extended period of time. Since we already had the milk, next we had to choose our yogurt. It’s depressing to me to see first-hand how afraid America is of fat, especially nutritional, satiating fat found in whole milk and yogurt. Most of the yogurts we could find in the store were 0% fat, low-fat, fat-free... it was difficult to find any made from whole milk. In addition, we couldn’t find organic, plain, Greek yogurt that wasn’t 0% fat. Considering that many of the nutritional benefits from milk are contained in the fat portions (1), this boggles my mind.
Here is the jar in the bowl with water:
It turned out fantastic! Its consistency was on the thin side, but it tasted delicious. We might try letting it sit longer in the warmed oven next time. Also, we are going to use this yogurt as the base for the next batch, so the results might turn out even better.
The best part about this? A quart of organic, whole milk yogurt from Stonyfield is around $3.50, which comes out to $14.00 per gallon. This yogurt was produced from raw milk, at $6.00 per gallon. Not too shabby.
Ever since buying raw milk, we have been researching about using it to make other products, such as butter, yogurt, and whey. We eat yogurt basically every day for breakfast, with almonds (my favorite are the Emerald cocoa roast almonds) and other nuts and berries, but we never really thought about making our own. When we visited Scheffler Farm to buy our first gallon of raw milk, Eileen urged us to try making our own yogurt, claiming it was ridiculously easy. She referred us to Get Foodie! (http://getfoodieshow.com/) and told us to watch Episode 11 to learn.
To make yogurt, all you need is to warm up some milk, then cool it a bit, add a tad of yogurt to start the culture growing, and keep it warm for an extended period of time. Since we already had the milk, next we had to choose our yogurt. It’s depressing to me to see first-hand how afraid America is of fat, especially nutritional, satiating fat found in whole milk and yogurt. Most of the yogurts we could find in the store were 0% fat, low-fat, fat-free... it was difficult to find any made from whole milk. In addition, we couldn’t find organic, plain, Greek yogurt that wasn’t 0% fat. Considering that many of the nutritional benefits from milk are contained in the fat portions (1), this boggles my mind.
Anyway, the idea of creating our own yogurt from raw milk was extremely appealing. Turns out, the actual process is also extremely easy.
Supplies:
- 1 qt raw milk
- thermometer (must measure 100F-180F range at least)
- quart-sized mason jar
- 2 Tbsp already made yogurt (we used organic greek yogurt)
- large bowl that will fit mason jar
- water
- oven
Directions:
1. Preheat oven to 250F
2. Pour milk in pan on stove
3. Heat to 180F, stirring constantly, then remove from heat and cool to 110F
4. Pour into mason jar
5. Add yogurt and stir
6. Fill bowl with warm/hot water
7. Seal mason jar and place in bowl with water
8. Put in oven
9. Turn off oven
10. Wait 8-18 hr
Here is us heating the yogurt:
Supplies:
- 1 qt raw milk
- thermometer (must measure 100F-180F range at least)
- quart-sized mason jar
- 2 Tbsp already made yogurt (we used organic greek yogurt)
- large bowl that will fit mason jar
- water
- oven
Directions:
1. Preheat oven to 250F
2. Pour milk in pan on stove
3. Heat to 180F, stirring constantly, then remove from heat and cool to 110F
4. Pour into mason jar
5. Add yogurt and stir
6. Fill bowl with warm/hot water
7. Seal mason jar and place in bowl with water
8. Put in oven
9. Turn off oven
10. Wait 8-18 hr
Here is us heating the yogurt:
Here is the jar in the bowl with water:
It turned out fantastic! Its consistency was on the thin side, but it tasted delicious. We might try letting it sit longer in the warmed oven next time. Also, we are going to use this yogurt as the base for the next batch, so the results might turn out even better.
The best part about this? A quart of organic, whole milk yogurt from Stonyfield is around $3.50, which comes out to $14.00 per gallon. This yogurt was produced from raw milk, at $6.00 per gallon. Not too shabby.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)