A clinical overview of diet and measures of inflammation response - like C Reactive Protein levels.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21139128
This shows a basis for generating an Inflammation index for foods. The higher index number the more inflammation was supressed in ~500 test subjects.
The reason I'm posting this was an article about inflammation indexes for foods, which appeared at first glance to be something the supplement industry was backing. Apparently not.
Another article on the index:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2777480/
This page lists nutritional information, which I spot checked against the USDA NAL page, and it looks like they almost literally copied the data. Some foods, not all, have an inflammation index.
Example olive oil: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fats-and-oils/509/2
Shows an inflammation index of 1100+ - which is really good to counter inflammation, but is pure fat. Negative numbers indicate that the food exacerbates inflammation.
Compare this to USDA standard nutrition (NAL): http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/611
This USDA list is the accepted standard reference for nutritional values in foods - the kind you see on US nutrition labels. The NAL database is used extensively to create those labels for prepared and canned foods, based on pro-rated amount per recipe ingredient, factored by serving size.
A note on serving size: Take the label value with a grain of salt - it is sometimes manipulated, usually to make crummy (health wise) foods look less awful, or really great foods look even better.
I once bought some boxed frozen pizza at the insistence of my kids. The things were 7 inches in diameter and each pizza plaque was "4 servings". Probably for 4 mice, not for small humans. Sodium, saturated fat, and calories were high, but when you multiplied by 4 the pizza discs exceeded daily values for adults for sodium. We used one for a frisbee, finally one of the dogs decided to eat it. Never bought anymore.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21139128
This shows a basis for generating an Inflammation index for foods. The higher index number the more inflammation was supressed in ~500 test subjects.
The reason I'm posting this was an article about inflammation indexes for foods, which appeared at first glance to be something the supplement industry was backing. Apparently not.
Another article on the index:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2777480/
This page lists nutritional information, which I spot checked against the USDA NAL page, and it looks like they almost literally copied the data. Some foods, not all, have an inflammation index.
Example olive oil: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fats-and-oils/509/2
Shows an inflammation index of 1100+ - which is really good to counter inflammation, but is pure fat. Negative numbers indicate that the food exacerbates inflammation.
Compare this to USDA standard nutrition (NAL): http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/611
This USDA list is the accepted standard reference for nutritional values in foods - the kind you see on US nutrition labels. The NAL database is used extensively to create those labels for prepared and canned foods, based on pro-rated amount per recipe ingredient, factored by serving size.
A note on serving size: Take the label value with a grain of salt - it is sometimes manipulated, usually to make crummy (health wise) foods look less awful, or really great foods look even better.
I once bought some boxed frozen pizza at the insistence of my kids. The things were 7 inches in diameter and each pizza plaque was "4 servings". Probably for 4 mice, not for small humans. Sodium, saturated fat, and calories were high, but when you multiplied by 4 the pizza discs exceeded daily values for adults for sodium. We used one for a frisbee, finally one of the dogs decided to eat it. Never bought anymore.
via Physics Forums RSS Feed http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=703603&goto=newpost
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire