Happy Pear Nonsense

CWF

The Happy Pear guys are currently promoting a new cook book. I was down at their shop in Greystones and it's a lovely little place with great food. Before listening to their interview this morning on 2 FM, I thought they were knowledgeable guys and all the rest. But I have to say, I am very annoyed with them.This morning, they were asked about protein and it's role in our diet. They're argument was that we get too caught up on protein and that 16 year old boys can't leave the house without two chicken breasts and a protein shake. They went on to ask, rhetorically, if anyone was ever rushed into hospital with a protein defiency. Pathetic.

One of them was asked, how would broccoli for example, compare in the amount of protein that beef has and they said they have a "comparable amount of protein". A quick Google search shows beef has 26% protein and broccoli only has 3%. This doesn't bode well for their book, in my opinion and I will be staying well away from it based on their nonsensical comments from today's interview.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Stop the press....misinformation, lies and self serving half truths in the fitness and Nutrition industry.

I am in shock.

eviltwin

They do lovely food and imho they should stick to that. I've no problem with a recipe book if it's just that. When people with no qualifications start talking about nutrition and diet though it annoys me.

L1011

They're right in so far as there is an utter obsession with protein currently - its probably this years fad after gluten-free was last year.

However, the rest of their nonsense is just par for the course really.

Alf Veedersane

CWF wrote: »

A quick Google search shows beef has 52% protein and broccoli only has 5%. This doesn't bode well for their book, in my opinion and I will be staying well away from it based on their nonsensical comments from today's interview.

To be fair, it's irrelevant insofar as their is no meat in their book anyway.

The recipes are probably nice, which is all you really want fro a book of recipes anyway.

lachica

I would say they were referring to the quantity of protein per 100 calories of food.

100 calories worth of broccoli = 8 grams of protein.

100 calories worth of steak = 10 grams of protein.

SteM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

To be fair, it's irrelevant insofar as their is no meat in their book anyway.

The recipes are probably nice, which is all you really want fro a book of recipes anyway.

It's not irrelevant if they're giving incorrect nutritional information on TV or radio. I don't know if they're correct or not but if they're giving out very specific information that they need to be clear and correct.

qrx

lachica wrote: »

I would say they were referring to the quantity of protein per 100 calories of food.

100 calories worth of broccoli = 8 grams of protein.

100 calories worth of steak = 10 grams of protein.

And how much broccoli must one eat to get 100 calories?

The way I see it, animals spend all day eating grass so I don't have to.

lachica

Grass ≠ broccoli.

You can see it how you want to, I'm merely pointing out that the information was not incorrect.

honreal

Ah sure the whole world appears to have woke up one morning and decided they are a gym fitness animal / nutritionist.


Take a look at instagram, click the search button down the bottom and watch your instagram page turn into a series of half naked selfies of men and women with hastags such about getting a nice 'pump' in the arms or about smashing the gym on a friday night or macros on point...

ask my bollox and live your life, nobody gives a crap if you look like your getting a nice pump in your tricepts... go eat a pizza and shut it

Alf Veedersane

SteM wrote: »

It's not irrelevant if they're giving incorrect nutritional information on TV or radio. I don't know if they're correct or not but if they're giving out very specific information that they need to be clear and correct.

My point was about the book. Their knowledge or otherwise of the macro content of their foods isn't relevant because it's a book of recipes.

Jamie Oliver might know even less about macros but that doesn't mean a book of his doesn't have nice food.

I'm not disagreeing on a general note about incorrect nutritional information in the public domain.

CWF

eviltwin wrote: »

They do lovely food and imho they should stick to that. I've no problem with a recipe book if it's just that. When people with no qualifications start talking about nutrition and diet though it annoys me.

I think you summed it up perfectly.

SteM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

My point was about the book. Their knowledge or otherwise of the macro content of their foods isn't relevant because it's a book of recipes.

Jamie Oliver might know even less about macros but that doesn't mean a book of his doesn't have nice food.

I'm not disagreeing on a general note about incorrect nutritional information in the public domain.

You're talking about the book. The OP was referring to information given in a radio interview so I don't know why you're talking about their book.

hardCopy

lachica wrote: »

Grass ≠ broccoli.

You can see it how you want to, I'm merely pointing out that the information was not incorrect.

Nah, they were just wrong. That's a fairly convoluted metric to use to make them right.

If you want nutritional advice look beyond your local vegan cafe.

Alf Veedersane

SteM wrote: »

You're talking about the book. The OP was referring to information given in a radio interview so I don't know why you're talking about their book.

Because he specifically referred to the book.

SteM

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Because he specifically referred to the book.

No, the OP specifically said that he was questioning information imparted in the interview. He never questioned anything in the book, he just mentioned they promoting a book. You're the one bringing up the contents of the book. They were asked about protein in beef during the interview and gave their opinion on in - nothing to do with information in the book.

Alf Veedersane

SteM wrote: »

No, the OP specifically said that he was questioning information imparted in the interview. He never questioned anything in the book, he just mentioned they promoting a book. You're the one bringing up the contents of the book. They were asked about protein in beef during the interview and gave their opinion on in - nothing to do with information in the book.

If you don't want to read the OP again, here is where the book was brought into it (following the broccoli/steak comment):

"This doesn't bode well for their book, in my opinion"

My point being that whether or not they have a clue about macro nutrients has little relevance on the quality of the recipes in the book. It's a separate point to whether or not they should be making pronouncements on nutrition publicly.

TheChizler

There is this general opinion that if you go vegetarian you need to obsess over how you're going to make up the lack of protein, when in reality most people eat way more protein than they actually need. I've seen their show in the past and this was the point they were trying to get across: that if you go veggie you're not going to collapse from the lack of protein. They're not nutritional experts and don't purport to be, so when they're answering a question on the spot I wouldn't take anything more from it than I would hearing it from someone on the street.

Mellor

CWF wrote: »

A quick Google search shows beef has 52% protein and broccoli only has 5%.

Beef isn't 52% protein.

lachica wrote: »

I would say they were referring to the quantity of protein per 100 calories of food.

100 calories worth of broccoli = 8 grams of protein.

100 calories worth of steak = 10 grams of protein.

25% more is not really a comparable amount.
And 10g protein per 100g would be a particularly fatty steak. Lean beef has 15-20g of protein per 100cals. Which is about twice as much as the broccoli.

So even with the ridiculous per 100 calories metric, its still not true

Hanley

I was ready to come on and be like "ah would you stop they make great food", but after reading that first post... Jesus

Zillah

Two of my friends came back from some cult-like course they ran previously full of nonsense like this. They tried to lecture me on protein - apples have protein, they told me with a slightly dazed expression. I started calling it their food cult because of the credulous zeal with which they returned each time.

The Happy Pear guys make some lovely food, I have one of their cook books, but I really wish they didn't propagate this nonsense. I'm vegetarian, but I won't go mad and try to convince myself broccoli is a good protein source. We're biologically omnivores, I choose not to eat meat, that doesn't mean meat is bad for you.

lee_baby_simms

They sell vegetables to rich people so it makes sense that they'd try to steer people away from meat based protein.

Apparently they sell a box of vegetables for juicing called 'liver detox' and slap a hefty markup on it.

There's absolutely no scientific evidence to prove that 'toxins' actually exist let alone that you need to drink juiced vegetables to purge your body of them.

Its almost a question of faith really. Like homeopathy meets fortune telling.

loyatemu

Their café is very nice (though the queues have become ridiculous since they became minor celebs), and the recipes in their cookbook are generally excellent. If they're getting more people eating vegetarian food at least some of the time I think that's probably a good thing - you can take or leave the hippy-dippy stuff and the topless handstands...

Alf Veedersane

Went onto their website just now.

There's an Education section.

Jesus.

They do good food, they have good recipes and it doesn't bother me that they're an older version of Jedward. But by the sounds of it they really shouldn't be in the business of running courses to 'educate' people.

Essien

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Went onto their website just now.

There's an Education section.

Jesus.

Just shoot me now...

Happy Pear Website wrote:

Hundreds of people have taken our Happy Heart course and achieved fantastic results. Overall, the average drop in cholesterol is nearly 20%. Please note, to get the very best results from the course you will need to cut all meat, dairy, eggs, processed foods, oil, nuts and avocados from your diet for four weeks.

Zillah

Essien wrote: »

Just shoot me now...

Good God.

Twin chefs David and Stephen Flynn have developed a delicious, oil-free plant-based eating program. For those who transition to this lifestyle it will be the end of heart disease, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, stroke, and a host of other common chronic killing diseases

Yes, because diabetes is caused by an oily diet. That's what the doctors say, keep your blood sugar down by avoiding oils.

Alf Veedersane

Food aside, bananas in pyjamas >> happy pears

j@utis

Originally Posted by Happy Pear Website
Hundreds of people have taken our Happy Heart course and achieved fantastic results. Overall, the average drop in cholesterol is nearly 20%. Please note, to get the very best results from the course you will need to cut all meat, dairy, eggs, processed foods, oil, nuts and avocados from your diet for four weeks.

I'd be dead in four weeks! there's nothing left to eat if you take all that away! apart broccoli of course, about 3kilos of it to get my protein

j@utis

TheChizler wrote: »

There is this general opinion that if you go vegetarian you need to obsess over how you're going to make up the lack of protein, when in reality most people eat way more protein than they actually need. <...>

I've flicked through National Diet Survey done in UK quite recently which states that average person get ~35% of his calories from fat, ~50% from carbs and the rest comes from protein. what's that about 15%? AFAIK it says 15-18% calories from protein. is that too much? how much is too much?

ford2600

j@utis wrote: »

how much is too much?

I suppose it depends on your goals; to survive or get stronger and thrive.

The WHO minimum limit is really low when compared to any well regarded studies for athletes, especially strength training.

If you eat to much, your body just uses it ( really inefficiently ) as fuel. For people trying to lose fat, plenty protein and plants seems to be a cornerstone of most sustainable diets.

Other than the Dr McDougal YouTube brigade that is

lee_baby_simms

Happy Pear Website wrote:

Hundreds of people have taken our Happy Heart course and achieved fantastic results. Overall, the average drop in cholesterol is nearly 20%. Please note, to get the very best results from the course you will need to cut all meat, dairy, eggs, processed foods, oil, nuts and avocados from your diet for four weeks.

This is some racket.

This is essentially severe calorie restriction. Its impossible to eat 2500 calories when eliminating all the foods above.

Its been proven a 3 day water fast will dramatically reduce LDL cholesterol.

It has nothing to do with a huge intake in kale or mung beans.

TheChizler

j@utis wrote: »

TheChizler wrote: »

There is this general opinion that if you go vegetarian you need to obsess over how you're going to make up the lack of protein, when in reality most people eat way more protein than they actually need. <...>

I've flicked through National Diet Survey done in UK quite recently which states that average person get ~35% of his calories from fat, ~50% from carbs and the rest comes from protein. what's that about 15%? AFAIK it says 15-18% calories from protein. is that too much? how much is too much?

I'm not really following, but I didn't say too much, I said more than they need.

Mellor

TheChizler wrote: »

I'm not really following, but I didn't say too much, I said more than they need.

How much protein does the typical active person need?
Assuming you have an amount in mind, what is that based on?

TheChizler

Mellor wrote: »

How much protein does the typical active person need?
Assuming you have an amount in mind, what is that based on?

I actually didn't have numbers in mind, it was a logical conclusion based on the way that vegetarians who don't supplement their diet with extra protein aren't collapsing around us, and I've heard it repeated often. But since you asked, and oversimplifying it, the recommended daily protein intake for the average sedentary adult man and women is 56/46 g while the average daily intake for both in America was 91-66 g per day. I'd prefer Irish sources but I'm not bothered as I'm not looking to prove a point. Huge simplifications here as well.

TallGlass

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

Its been proven a 3 day water fast will dramatically reduce LDL cholesterol.

Wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of a water fast again to be honest. I'd say you'd do more harm than good.

lee_baby_simms

TallGlass wrote: »

Wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of a water fast again to be honest. I'd say you'd do more harm than good.

Yeah it can be rough alright but there are a lot of health benefits to fasting.

doireannod

lee_baby_simms wrote: »

They sell vegetables to rich people so it makes sense that they'd try to steer people away from meat based protein.

Apparently they sell a box of vegetables for juicing called 'liver detox' and slap a hefty markup on it.

There's absolutely no scientific evidence to prove that 'toxins' actually exist let alone that you need to drink juiced vegetables to purge your body of them.

Its almost a question of faith really. Like homeopathy meets fortune telling.

Detoxing means reducing oxidation in the body. Oxidative stress leads to free radicals which can cause things like aging and inflammation. Vegetables have polyphenols in them which can neutralise the free radicals. Consuming them in a juice is the most efficient way of getting enough polyphenols in to your system. This is what is meant by detoxing.

I don't do any of this. I don't believe in juicing my food. Just explaining the rationale behind it.

bandwagonesque

TheChizler wrote: »

I actually didn't have numbers in mind, it was a logical conclusion based on the way that vegetarians who don't supplement their diet with extra protein aren't collapsing around us, and I've heard it repeated often. But since you asked, and oversimplifying it, com/food-recipes/protein]the recommended daily protein intake for the average sedentary adult man and women is 56/46 g[/url] while cn.nutrition.org/content/87/5/1554S.full]the average daily intake for both in America was 91-66 g per day[/url]. I'd prefer Irish sources but I'm not bothered as I'm not looking to prove a point. Huge simplifications here as well.

But when people go on about protein needs they're generally asking because they're training to build some muscle and/or lose fat. Maybe that's why the amount advised is higher than the 56g for the average sedentary person?

And are we taking about vegetarians who have specific training goals or just your average vegetarian who doesn't really train that 'aren't collapsing around us'?

I'm genuinely asking because I'd love some clarification on the 'how much protein' thing.

TheChizler

Most people aren't athletes or bodybuilders so I imagine they wouldnt affect the average hugely. My expertise was exhausted once I clicked search on google unfortunately!

Blacktie.

doireannod wrote:

Detoxing means reducing oxidation in the body. Oxidative stress leads to free radicals which can cause things like aging and inflammation. Vegetables have polyphenols in them which can neutralise the free radicals. Consuming them in a juice is the most efficient way of getting enough polyphenols in to your system. This is what is meant by detoxing.

This reads like the back of a detox plan box.

Alf Veedersane

If only they could invent organs to detox in the body.

But that sh*t is like something from Terminator.

doireannod

Blacktie. wrote: »

This reads like the back of a detox plan box.

Fair enough. Just telling the group what detox means. I've never done anything remotely like a detox plan or detox tea or anything. Don't feel the need to. I don't advocate or promote it. Just explaining.

And I don't think that the back of a detox plan box would openly and blatantly say that you can get all the anti oxidants you want from fruit and veg and fancy detox plans are unnecessary when these are incorporated in to your usual diet

Mellor

TheChizler wrote: »

I actually didn't have numbers in mind, it was a logical conclusion based on the way that vegetarians who don't supplement their diet with extra protein aren't collapsing around us,

But nobody is suggesting that the effect of not eating enough protein is collaspe. It's bad skin and hair, slow healing, poor hormone production, and of course, muscle mass. A lot of vegetarians actually have very poor diets and suffer from those issue.
A healthy vegetarian diet actually includes a lot of vegetarian protein sources.

But since you asked, and oversimplifying it, the recommended daily protein intake for the average sedentary adult man and women is 56/46 g while the average daily intake for both in America was 91-66 g per day.

No where does that first link say that they are the optimum amounts. It actually sats they are the minimum amounts. And appear to be based on the next line;

You should get at least 10% of your daily calories, but not more than 35%, from protein, according to the Institute of Medicine.

56g will be 10% for a small sedentary man (total cals 2250). Not for anyone who is even slighty larger or little active, they'd need more to hit 10%. The maximum that that person should eat is 196g (35%), based on the info you posted.
For me on a training day, 10-35% would be 75-265g.

The average US in take was slightly higher than the minimum at 66-91g (btw did you reverse the order to make it appear higher?). But that doesn't reference the overall intake. But they show it in the next graph, was taken from the study you posted.

As a % over intake, protein appears to be a steady 13-14% across the board. Which is perfectly within the acceptable range, if anything it's closer to the lower acceptable limit.
It's also in line with the UK figure that J@utis refered to above, slightly more in the UK (14-18%),

Mellor

doireannod wrote: »

Fair enough. Just telling the group what detox means. I've never done anything remotely like a detox plan or detox tea or anything. Don't feel the need to. I don't advocate or promote it. Just explaining.

But that's not what detox means.
Detox is short for Detoxification. Which means the removal of toxic compounds. Such as the function preformed by the liver, through dialysis, or even medically via antidote/antivemon. All of these process remove something toxic from out body.

Detox diets are bullshit and have been refuted by science for years. The Mayo Clinic says;

Detoxification (detox) diets are popular, but there is little evidence that they eliminate toxins from your body.

Specific detox diets vary — but typically a period of fasting is followed by a strict diet of raw vegetables, fruit and fruit juices, and water. In addition, some detox diets advocate using herbs and other supplements along with colon cleansing (enemas) to empty the intestines.

Some people report feeling more focused and energetic during and after detox diets. However, there's little evidence that detox diets actually remove toxins from the body. Indeed, the kidneys and liver are generally quite effective at filtering and eliminating most ingested toxins.

What you mentioned is something else entirely. Oxidative stress is too many free radicals, not the cause of free radicals. And free radicals are not toxins either, they are actually a necessary part of out biology. But they need to be controlled to preventun controlled oxidation - why we need up anti-oxidants.

doireannod

Mellor wrote: »

But that's not what detox means.
Detox is short for Detoxification. Which means the removal of toxic compounds. Such as the function preformed by the liver, through dialysis, or even medically via antidote/antivemon. All of these process remove something toxic from out body.

Detox diets are bullshit and have been refuted by science for years. The Mayo Clinic says;


What you mentioned is something else entirely. Oxidative stress is too many free radicals, not the cause of free radicals. And free radicals are not toxins either, they are actually a necessary part of out biology. But they need to be controlled to preventun controlled oxidation - why we need up anti-oxidants.

Free radicals are necessary but too many are damaging to the body. No need to give a link from Mayo Clinic rubbishing detox diets; I've already said I don't advocate them.

Oxidative stress is not too many free radicals. Oxidative stress results in free radicals.

I know that the liver and kidneys (and skin) remove waste from the body. There's a difference between waste being removed from the body and detoxification though.

jh79

doireannod wrote: »

Free radicals are necessary but too many are damaging to the body. No need to give a link from Mayo Clinic rubbishing detox diets; I've already said I don't advocate them.

I know that the liver and kidneys remove waste from the body. There's a difference between waste being removed from the body and detoxification though.

Are you talking about "metabolic detoxification"?

From wiki:

An animal's metabolism can produce harmful substances which it can then make less toxic through reduction, oxidation (collectively known as redox reactions), conjugation and excretion of molecules from cells or tissues.[9] This is called xenobiotic metabolism.[10][11][12][13] Enzymes that are important in detoxification metabolism include cytochrome P450 oxidases,[14] UDP-glucuronosyltransferases,[15] and glutathione S-transferases.[16] These processes are particularly well-studied as part of drug metabolism, as they influence the pharmacokinetics of a drug in the body.[17][18][19]

doireannod

jh79 wrote: »

Are you talking about "metabolic detoxification"?

From wiki:

An animal's metabolism can produce harmful substances which it can then make less toxic through reduction, oxidation (collectively known as redox reactions), conjugation and excretion of molecules from cells or tissues.[9] This is called xenobiotic metabolism.[10][11][12][13] Enzymes that are important in detoxification metabolism include cytochrome P450 oxidases,[14] UDP-glucuronosyltransferases,[15] and glutathione S-transferases.[16] These processes are particularly well-studied as part of drug metabolism, as they influence the pharmacokinetics of a drug in the body.[17][18][19]

Yeah. That's it. But there doesn't seem to be any mention of the harmful products of oxidative stress in this Wikipedia post i.e free radicals. Nor do they mention that polyphenols in fruit and veg can "mop up" these free radicals and thus reverse some of the harmful effects of oxidation.

TheChizler

Mellor wrote: »

No where does that first link say that they are the optimum amounts. It actually sats they are the minimum amounts. And appear to be based on the next line;

You should get at least 10% of your daily calories, but not more than 35%, from protein, according to the Institute of Medicine.

56g will be 10% for a small sedentary man (total cals 2250). Not for anyone who is even slighty larger or little active, they'd need more to hit 10%. The maximum that that person should eat is 196g (35%), based on the info you posted.
For me on a training day, 10-35% would be 75-265g.

The average US in take was slightly higher than the minimum at 66-91g (btw did you reverse the order to make it appear higher?). But that doesn't reference the overall intake. But they show it in the next graph, was taken from the study you posted.

As a % over intake, protein appears to be a steady 13-14% across the board. Which is perfectly within the acceptable range, if anything it's closer to the lower acceptable limit.
It's also in line with the UK figure that J@utis refered to above, slightly more in the UK (14-18%),

Can't figure out how to quote properly in the new Boards...

I never mentioned optimum amounts, only that people eat more than they need, which would be the minimum. And of course this doesn't cover people who are active, such as yourself, it specifically said sedentary. I didn't reverse the numbers, that was the order they were included in the summary, and in order of age, for young adults and the elderly respectively.

The only point I'm trying to get across is that they were saying it's not that hard to be vegetarian and get sufficient protein. There's no need to be taking supplements or having a diet that mostly consists of pulses. Anything past that is beyond what I'm qualified to speak about.

Mellor

doireannod wrote: »

Free radicals are necessary but too many are damaging to the body.

I know, which is why I said you want to control them. Free radicals are not good if there are too many, but that's is nothing to do with detox diets.

No need to give a link from Mayo Clinic rubbishing detox diets; I've already said I don't advocate them.

You may not advocate them.
But you post a "definition" for detox that suggested it is a real thing. It isn't. The science confirms it isn't.

Oxidative stress is not too many free radicals. Oxidative stress results in free radicals.

Googling the definition returns this;
"Oxidative stress is essentially an imbalance between the production of free radicals and the ability of the body to counteract or detoxify their harmful effects through neutralization by antioxidants"

It's the result of the embalance, not the cause.
Regardless, it's something else entirely to detoxing.

I know that the liver and kidneys (and skin) remove waste from the body. There's a difference between waste being removed from the body and detoxification though.

It's literally the definition of detoxification.

doireannod

Mellor wrote: »

I know, which is why I said you want to control them. Free radicals are not good if there are too many, but that's is nothing to do with detox diets.


You may not advocate them.
But you post a "definition" for detox that suggested it is a real thing. It isn't. The science confirms it isn't.


Googling the definition returns this;
"Oxidative stress is essentially an imbalance between the production of free radicals and the ability of the body to counteract or detoxify their harmful effects through neutralization by antioxidants"

It's the result of the embalance, not the cause.
Regardless, it's something else entirely to detoxing.


It's literally the definition of detoxification.

In the same post, you say that detoxification isn't a thing and "the science confirms it isn't a thing". But then you go on to say that the removal of waste is "literally the definition of detoxification". Make up your mind. Is it or isn't it a thing?

In all of my years at medical school and post graduate medical education never once have I learned that the removal of wastes products from the body via the skin, liver and kidneys is "detoxification".

jh79

doireannod wrote: »

Yeah. That's it. But there doesn't seem to be any mention of the harmful products of oxidative stress in this Wikipedia post i.e free radicals. Nor do they mention that polyphenols in fruit and veg can "mop up" these free radicals and thus reverse some of the harmful effects of oxidation.

I was under the impression that the idea that antioxidants mop up free radicals in the body was just a theory based on what is observed in synthetic chemistry.

Is there any evidence that this chemical reaction is replicated in the body and more importantly that we can influence it through diet to an extent that would give an observable clinical effect?

Using the example of the Happy Pear Twins Detox Box what influence on metabolic detoxification will it have and what clinical effect will be observed?