Are There Substances In Food That We Are Not Aware Of?

[Ron J]

Often many foods discussed here are avoided due to undesirable substances, such as serotonin, androgen lowering substances, and vitamin/mineral binding substances that block proper absorption. Then there are other foods that help lower endotoxin, lower estrogen/prolactin, raise androgens, improve thyroid function etc. But what if many of those foods have other substances that do the opposite and we just don't know it yet?

 

[shepherdgirl]

I think there are substances that cancel out some of the beneficial substances in foods. For instance, milk contains both estrogen and progesterone. But if there are studies of the effect of the whole food they would give an idea of the net effect of the food.

 

[Ron J]

I think there are substances that cancel out some of the beneficial substances in foods. For instance, milk contains both estrogen and progesterone. But if there are studies of the effect of the whole food they would give an idea of the net effect of the food.

True. Thanks for your input.

 

[bistecca]

This is a really interesting and understudied topic. Not only does a given food contain both beneficial and detrimental substances, (vitamins, minerals, proteins, energy, pro-metabolic substances -vs- toxins, bacteria and substrates for bacteria, anti-metabolic substances), one might also consider how a given food can vary in proportions of these substances.. For example ripe fruit vs non-ripe fruit.. Modern industrial pork and poultry vs wild boar or game birds or grass fed vs grain fed beef... (i've seen some studies with pufa levels in pork as high as 35% and some farmers who feed very specific low pufa diets with levels as low as 6%) Foods with contaminants or something like glyphosate... There is even research suggesting that increasing atmospheric carbon levels are actually changing nutrient levels in some plant foods, increasing carbohydrates and some vitamins at the expense of protein and B vitamins and minerals. I think there are probably tons of substances in foods --some beneficial and some detrimental-- that we haven't isolated and identified yet.

 

[Lilac]

"Nutrition textbooks flatly describe caffeine as a drug, not a nutrient, as if it were obvious that nutrients can’t be drugs. Any of the essential nutrients, if used in isolation, can be used as a drug, for a specific effect on the organism that it wouldn’t normally have when eaten as a component of ordinary food. And natural foods contain thousands of chemicals, other than the essential nutrients. Many of these are called nonessential nutrients, but their importance is being recognized increasingly. The truth is that we aren’t sure what they “aren’t essential” for. Until we have more definite knowledge about the organism I don’t think we should categorize things so absolutely as drugs or nutrients."
--Ray Peat, from his article Caffeine: A Vitamin-like Nutrient, or Adaptogen

 

[Ron J]

@Lilac
This is why I'm often doubting large quantities of table sugar. Even something so nutrient deficient as white rice may have other beneficial substances that hasn't been identified, as mentioned by bristecca.

 

[Waynish]

This is a really interesting and understudied topic. Not only does a given food contain both beneficial and detrimental substances, (vitamins, minerals, proteins, energy, pro-metabolic substances -vs- toxins, bacteria and substrates for bacteria, anti-metabolic substances), one might also consider how a given food can vary in proportions of these substances.. For example ripe fruit vs non-ripe fruit..

Exactly; ripe vs non-ripe fruit is a good example of this. I certainly think there are unclassified substances in foods. I think this is a good question and it is often shunned because people don't like answering questions that they can't answer. People want to act like they know.