This paragraph is, arguably, far more important than all the hysteria about flavor packs, but it's only partially correct. Fibre does help provide satiety but, in and of itself, it isn't what's good for you about eating whole fruit unless you simply aren't getting enough fibre and have issues with constipation. What fibre does do is reduce the rate at which we absorb sugar. Apple juice will give you a nice fast sugar high and then a low, much like candy. An apple will give you a gradual surge of energy for a while. If you're going to eat something sweet, it's far better for you if it comes combined with fibre.
So don't go searching for juice that doesn't use flavor packs. Don't buy a juicer and juice your own either, because you're still throwing away what separates fruit from candy. Don't mess around with fermenting juices and all that probiotic jazz. If you simply must drink your fruit, use a blender.
Personally, I use my Vitamix to make my own "apple juice smoothy" and routinely ferment fruit for the probiotics. But I'm skeptical about the "juice is bad" meme.
It is and for a simple reason that we've known about for a long time: glycaemic index. If the sugars (fructose) are locked in a matrix of cellulose (AKA dietary fibre) they're released gradually as your body digests the bulk matter. If you plot the blood sugar concentration of the person consuming a solid piece of fruit you see a nice curve where the levels rise, peak, and non-violently fall.
Now when you process the fruit you're effectively pre-digesting it - the sugars are free of the cellulose matrix (the bulk of the fruit) and when you plot the blood sugar concentration after consumption of juice, because no work needs to be done to digest it, the blood sugar level quickly spikes. This provides a rush, then your insulin response peaks, sending your blood sugar levels crashing. This happens much faster than the curve in blood sugar from eating unprocessed fruit.
The only argument I'll accept from people who drink juice: They like it. That's OK. You're allowed to like things. I like beer, which acts similarly to juice with regards to blood sugar concentration.
Fructose on the other hand can only be processed by your liver, so all the fructose you eat just kind of queues up for your liver to process it. It doesn't cause you to release insulin so it has a low glycemic index. Your liver can convert fructose to glycogen and then to glucose to feed your cells if you don't eat any carbs or glucose. But if you already have more than enough carbs/glucose, your liver instead converts the fructose to fat and stores it. This can lead to fatty liver and somewhat interestingly can also lead to insulin resistance which then makes you worse at processing glucose. Alcohol also gets processed exclusively in your liver and can cause fatty liver, so it is true that juice and beer can do a similar kind of damage.
Anyway, on the bigger point I 100% agree that juice is bad for you. It's sad to see it so often touted as healthy.
EDIT: One thing I do wonder about, people always point to fiber as a reason why fruit is ok but fruit juice isn't. It seems like it would be a lot easier to get people to start taking fiber supplements than to stop eating sugar, so why don't we ever hear that advice?
You're correct and my original post is incorrect with regards to fructose. Thanks for pointing this out - it's better to be wrong but enlightened.
Lustig goes through all the processes here:
Either way, apple juice and orange juice have about 10-12g carbs per 100g (according to the packaging, in NL). Coca Cola has (not sure) I think, about 11g/100g? So I treat it about the same and drink it rarely.
The only difference is, you can mix up most types of juice 50/50 with tap water and it'll taste good (and if you're thirsty, actually better IMO). Try that with Coca Cola and ... nope :)
I had never heard of glycemic load before today, and I'm always reading articles about nutrition science. It seems like fruit and veg have relatively high glycemic indices, but low glycemic load--which means that they're fine, which makes sense. Who here can imagine a doctor telling anyone on earth not to eat more carrots?
EDIT: I also found this article: http://www.calorieking.com/learnabouts/The-Glycemic-Index-Th... which had this quote:
The glycemic load (GL) goes a step further than the GI by taking into account the amount of carbohydrate in a food. A weak point of the GI is that it fails to do this.
For example, carrots have a high GI of 47, but you have to eat a pound and a half of them for there to be a steep rise in blood sugar.
This completely meshes with my experience.
Completely tangential, but I can imagine doctors treating patients complaining of Carotenosis:
Carotenemia or carotenaemia (xanthaemia) is the presence of the orange pigment carotene in blood from excessive intake of carrots or other vegetables containing the pigment resulting in increased serum carotenoids. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carotenosis
carrots are full of water, not to mention roughage, so they don't have high caloric density per unit mass/weight
the glycemic load is precisely articulating the index number adjusted per unit mass to account for stuff like caroots or beets etc.
So basically if you ate de-hydrated fruit or vegetables that will load higher (per unit mass) than stuff full of water...because whater has no cals...so water and starch dilute glycemic index
The glycemic load is calculated by multiplying the glycemic index of a food by the amount of carbs in a 10 gram portion of the food.
In practice, you can dilute glycemic index using fat and protein in addition to water.
And people really don't understand this. For instance, you basically can't find full-fat yogurt in an American grocery store. Instead there's 20 kinds of non-fat yogurt packed with sugar, which have a much higher glycemic load than yogurt with the same amount of sugar and fat would. But they're all advertised as being healthy because they're non-fat. It's crazy.
There's nothing wrong with this except that it probably makes you feel more hungry and eat more. But the blood sugar surge isn't really unhealthy in normal people, it's usually the subsequent behavioral impact (the low that makes you feel hungry) that causes the real harm (ie: the total sugar matters more directly than the glycemic index).
I agree there's nothing wrong with the part quoted. That's an ideal outcome. And the surge of blood sugar concentration from juice wasn't the part I was concerned about (unless it results in a child going into a hyperactive transdimensional shit-fit). The blood sugar crash is the significant part: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoglycemia#Signs_and_symptom...
Low blood sugar also plays a major part in decision fatigue. Do you make dinner after work or buy something on the way home? Making a healthy dinner is the better decision but right now you want satiety. Do you do the washing or sit in front of the TV? You don't just have decision fatigue, you're out of energy - the real deal.
This is in contrast to a low GI meal where the energy supply is provided over a longer period at a stable rate, providing the stamina to make good decisions and act on them.
The problem is that people can't separate an unbalanced diet from the foods that are throwing them out of balance.
Juice is fine and great. Getting most of your calories from simple sugars like all too many people do (and like juice provides)is bad. Replacing sodas with fruit juice doesn't do much to make your diet better. You should balance your sugars, fats, and proteins.
It's a cloud looking like substance in my juice. Does that mean it's been sitting too long? Fermented apple by chance? Smells almost like alcohol when opening it.
To be specific, I was trying to describe the "tree looking" like thing inside the bottle.
Are you skeptical of "sugar is bad" meme? If you are, not sure how sugar disolved in water is a different.
I recently had to discover this, for any kind of raw food actually, even carrots. Anything 'processed' (either industrial pre-made meals, or even home made sauced/whatever) will tease your mouth and brain in an incomparably different manner. You can eat at least 3 times more of anything if it's dipped into fat/sugar/spices. Without these, your brain will very clearly and very quickly tell you "enough". Even delicious strawberries have enough acid, sour in it to make you sick pretty fast.
My question is if the fibre has to be whole or not. If I put an apple into a high powered blender, it will get pulverized, but I'm not removing any fibre from it the way I would if I were running it through a juicer.
Does the "slowing" factor of the fibre depend on it being in clumps (i.e. a chunk of apple digests slower than apple sauce)?
> slower/evenly absorbed
Also, I'm curious what you mean here by "evenly absorbed." Even in what sense?
Going back to whole fruits the key I found was remembering those lessons as a kid, chew your food. This means even with fruits to make sure you don't just chew two or three times and swallow. That can lead to some gastric problems which turns many off to certain types of fruits. Better is to each vegetables, combined together they can be nearly as sweet tasting without the sugar
For the most part, once you have enough protein in your diet, calories are calories. If you're predisposed to diabetes you're better off getting those calories from low glycemic sources. That doesn't make it easy to avoid too much of the good^Wbad stuff. However, you should also avoid getting more than 100g of sugar a day, though I try to stay under 100g of net carbs/day.
Sugar bound up in fiber (as is the case with natural fruit) is not immediately bioavailable. Your GI tract needs to break down the fiber in order to release the sugar, which takes time. The sugar is absorbed by your small intestine more slowly, causing a gentler glycemic response. This is analogous to 'extended release' medication, where the dose is delivered slowly over a longer period of time.
Separating the sugar from the fiber (as with juicing) means that all the sugar is bioavailable more or less immediately after you consume it, Causing the blood sugar high followed by the insulin spike. Adding fiber to your sugary meal does little to slow this down.
Nutrition threads in HN never fail to crack me up. Excess fiber consumption is exactly reason why I have a juicer, and because it tastes delicious.
Stop scaring people. Try doing some sports or having a walk instead of reading paleo/keto propaganda blogs for a change. Maybe that way you'll all be able to handle sugars just like any other healthy individual does.
Fermenting reduces the sugar in the beverage.The sugar is processed by the cultures.
If nothing else, high and uneven sugar levels are a recipe for getting fat and to get insulin resistance.
Excess glicose floating around in your bloodstream is harmful. You want a constant, baseline level, but the rest should be removed asap.
Maybe don't buy your orange juice from subsidiaries of the Coca Cola company and Pepsico, as a starting point.
Also interesting: https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/2684u1/ysk_t...
I've considered switching to frozen concentrate for a lower-cost approach. I think it's likely to be promptly frozen after harvest, and may have lower pesticide levels due to smaller-scale production: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/chemical-residues-microbiol...
No flavor packs, enzyme and BPA free. And it's organic. And it actually tastes like oranges.
I believe there is an episode on National Geographic channel from the show "Going Deep With David Rees" where he visits a lab that makes Pure H20. He is only allowed to sip it. The episode was about creating ice without impurities. (it was found that pure H2O is not necessary to creating perfect ice, not is it made for human consumption.)
Only if you don't eat anything at all with it.
Total dissolved solids must be under 500mg/L in US drinking water supplies, and the highly regarded NYC water system delivers water with less than 50mg/L of total dissolved solids. Most of that is sodium chloride, calcium chloride and magnesium sulfate, classic tasty salts... all of which are readily available in foods.
See http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/wsstate13.pdf for the 2013 water quality report; see table 1.
If you got distilled water instead, you'd notice the taste, but there wouldn't be a health problem.
Unless they plan on selling the juice just during harvest time, they need to store it. Try and store some juice you squeezed from oranges even in the refrigerator and see how long it will last and how it will taste. It will last some but not for 6 months.
Consistency. Tropicana tastes one way, others taste different. I don't know why you need any proof, products will change flavor after they are stored for a while.
> add massive amounts of chemicals to something to give it
I'll have to throw the "sauce, please" back at you here ;-) I don't see where in the article it says these flavor packs are massive. Flavor compounds if done right will not be massive. Have you ever added spices or vanilla to anything you cook or bake. How much of the total volume is it? It usually isn't much.
> No proof is provided of this assertion.
I think it is rather common sense that it would lose flavor, at best it would have a different / strange flavor.
> hardly something to feel alarm about.
Really, you don't have any idea why someone might be a slightly worried about this class of additives put into a popular food that gets to skirt by regulations based on "technical" language.
Industrial companies have a lot of resources and techniques available to them that the typical person making juice in their home does not. For example, what if they pasteurize the juice? Then it might also last longer, etc.
Some people react negatively to these sorts of scientific techniques out of what seems to be the naturalistic fallacy, a sort of (mistaken) belief that "natural things" (whatever that means) are intrinsically better.
Common sense is not proof.
>Flavor compounds if done right will not be massive. Have you ever added spices or vanilla to anything you cook or bake. How much of the total volume is it? It usually isn't much.
Then it's not a problem
Back in the day, smoking wasn't proved that it was unhealthy while it was common sense that it was.
It used by oil companies, agro-businesses, and other industries, and of course tobacco companies. As part of their campaigns over the years they have instilled those ideas pretty well at at fundamental level in everyone's minds specifically that:
1) Stuff is safe unless we have hard scientific evidence that it is not
2) One should not interfere with or harass big companies too much, because if you hurt them it will hurt the economy. They know what they are doing, are smarter, have better scientists and in general are mature enough to police themselves.
3) Only conspiracy theory people, hippies, and communists worry about health and mother earth, those people are irrational and crazy. You don't want to be like them. You want to be an American.
When consumers would say "we'd like to label explicitly this and that", or "this seems unhealthy, we should probably disallow its usage in food" the reply is "Where is your sauce? Do you have hard science? No? Ok then we are a rational science based society so we should allow it".
It is a very effective tactic in general and no wonder it is used all the time.
Next time I juice fresh oranges--and if I remember--I will freeze some, just to see what happens :) Especially interested if it'll taste more like the stuff we get from the shop here (which is nearly all "from concentrate").
To complicate the matter further, juices that are concentrated for preservation, handling and storage and reconstituted for consumption (labelled "juice from concentrate") should be diluted back to approximately the same solids level (designated as Brix or percent soluble solids) of the initial juice. The amount of add-back water can vary substantially even within a given fruit, so reasonable commercial standards are set (FDA, 1999)
Juice is a pretty loaded word with lots of meanings. The tables in this document might help: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y2515e/y2515e03.htm
1) flavor. When you buy this brand of juice it taste this way
2) flavor consistency. No matter which field or time of year the can produce the same flavor.
Just google GMO and this blog:
The dangers of GMO from a economic perspective are worthy of worry on their own. If you haven't seen Food Inc, then I would recommend that as a starting point to learn how dangerous the monopolisation of the food industry can be to society. The farmers in Peru want to protect their existing biodiversity, something North America has lost thanks to Monsanto, where you cannot legally grow a heirloom corn crop without paying patent fees to monsanto because of the inevitable wind-born cross pollination, thereby violating monsanto patent rights.
Unfortunately the biggest GMO companies in the world have given GMO foods a bad name.
While GM technology does have hope for the future, like AI, it also poses risks. We need to take those risks seriously, and dismissing people anti-GM as being anti-science is FUD on your part.
There are dangers of eating GM food, but that doesn't mean the dangers come from the genes themselves. GM food such as roundup ready crops can have increased herbicide residue compared to non-GM crops.
We live in a world of corporate funded "science", so being skeptical of claims of 100% safety for GM organisms released into the wild isn't anti-science, it's just using the Precautionary Principle.
The Precautionary Principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.
I think that is the correct approach to GM. The potential risks if things go wrong are huge and irreversible, wheres the need for GM food (if any) doesn't justify that risk until we have better scientific consensus.
Also nobody forced farmers to by the GMO crops, they're buying it for a reason. They're buying it because it's good.
 - https://www.google.com/search?q=monsanto%20wind%20blown%20se...
Monsanto actually has a page "busting" the myth, but I'm going to link to it because it clearly states that monsanto has the right to enforce patent fees in this case.
Here is the quote:
Monsanto has a long-standing public commitment that “it has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto’s policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.”
So they are saying that, yes they own those patent rights, but no they won't enforce them. It's pretty clear cut that one has a legal obligation to pay monsanto, but they're being nice by not enforcing their rights. ( If you watch Food Inc, you'll see how nice they are about non-enforcement in reality ).
HuffPo (complete with a letter from a OJ Industry Group PR Rep that does not refute anything in the article, just tries to reframe)
The New Yorker
But are you okay with Montsanto's practices?
There's good science that basically explains that their business model is not doing the best for the planet or the people living in it. It is, indeed reducing bio-diversity as far as I know. Also, their practices are super shady, having lived in latam all my life, I saw the way they got into several countries there and it's disgusting.
There's much, much more than meets the eye about GMOs, how Montsanto is using the seeds and the actual repercussions of it. The debate, is not around 'GMOs being more harmful', at all.
From a purely scientific standpoint, I'm for GMO, but I have to admit that I don't really know what's in the industrial food I buy. Worse, it's in the food industry's best interest to obfuscate, and it would be foolish to think that the GMO industry is any different.
You could produce the exact same chemical result without this process a lot safer and cheaper but then you couldn't call it pure orange juice not from concentrate.
Sometimes we trade taste and nutrition for convenience, safety, consistency and year round availability. I like freshly squeezed oranges off my orange tree but they don't grow all year round. I am mostly happy not to consume oranges out of season but that isn't really a basis for a sustainable industry and beverage companies have sensibly created a market for year round, consistent tasting juice products.
Actually I'd call that the definition of a basis for a sustainable industry...
Don't label something "natural" or "100% fresh juice" if it's not.
The point you make is a more complex one than you seem to be implying. What does it mean for something to be "natural"? Is pasteurisation natural? What about homogenisation? Packaging?
That's how I think it should work. Honest labeling, and letting consumers decide.
I don't want genetic engineering and industrial preservation techniques to go the way of nuclear energy -- discarded for an alternative that comparatively damages our health, damages our wallets, and damages the environment simply because the otherwise superior option has a higher coefficient of sensationality.
The problem to me with such an approach (even given that the end is in fact alturistic and beneficial) is: who gets to decide which lies get to be told, and who decides what is beneficial? Beneficial to whom? the whole society? some subset of society?
Do we allow all lies in advertising? Or just ones you or some elite (perhaps scientists or technocrats) determine are for the benefit of society?
Personally, I'd rather have the truth be told, and hold advertisers to a higher standard.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie
Let's get one thing straight: you're the one who wants to extend the current definition of "lie" to include this particular brand of misdirection and then censor that misdirection. You're the one who wants to "hold advertisers to a higher standard" in the name of benefiting society. I'm the one advocating the comparatively hands-off approach of continuing to restrict censorship to literally false statements. Those hard questions you asked about who should get to make arbitrary decisions are the ones you have to answer for your argument to be convincing.
This is the sub-text of the article, so I think you're being a little naive. Working backwards from the conclusion, there is no difference between various type of juice.
I am not proud of regulatory environment that allows them to not have to list those ingridients on package and instead do what they do and still claim "Fresh", "Natural", "Not from Concentrate" (i.e. pasteurized) etc.
EDIT: https://www.google.com/search?q=nutritional+value+of+jurice+... (Change Juice type to Orange
https://www.google.com/search?q=nutritional+value+of+jurice+... (change Juice type to Orange)
So we can see right off the bat the compared to Juice, oranges per unit volume have 12 times more dietary fiber, more vitamin A & C, almost 4 times more calcium.
That wasn't hard to find.
As for micronutrients like vitamins, all of them can be destroyed by heat. All forms of cooking reduce the amount of vitamins in the food, and pasteurization is no exception. The trade-off is generally worth it, however, as it takes a fair amount of work to avoid enough foods that you end up with a deficiency, and the health benefits of killing the bacteria are so great.
Also, fruit juice has a lot of sugar in it; you don't want it to be too large a part of your diet anyway.
Colloquial translation for those of you playing along at home:
The burden of proof lies with he who affirms not he who denies, since by the nature of things, he who denies cannot produce any proof.
(This is the classic statement of the presumption of innocence, and also one of the core principles in the dawn of Enlightenment era science, where it was adapted into our modern understanding of scientific skepticism.)
>That which is said in Latin seems deep.
Just because something is abused does not mean that a proper usage of the same is also wrong.
We're also attempting to communicate solely through well known quotations, which poses its own set of unique constraints.
Sorry. What game are we playing here?
No it (i.e. orange juice) doesn't have meaningful value. It's like soda minus the bubbles.
8oz of Coca-Cola contains 26g sugar: http://www.coca-colaproductfacts.com/en/coca-cola-products/c...
8oz of Tropicana orange juice contains 22g sugar: http://www.tropicana.com/products/tropicana_pure_premium/no_...
If you're concerned about your Vitamin C intake, try a multi-vitamin.
While I usually suggest drinking something that isn't full of sugar, I'm glad science and engineering has found ways to store juice for long periods without spoiling. These techniques can probably be used in other ares. Advances in science and technology often have wider benefits, often unexpected.
The only potential problem I see with the orange juice situation is labeling. More accurate labeling requirements keep markets honest, and the claim of being "freshly squeezed" factually wrong given any reasonable definition of "fresh".
Often even the Schorle sold in stores has too much juice, average seems to be at 60%, I prefer more like 30%. In the recent years, 5% to 10% Schorle has become increasingly popular.
There is at least one Biomarkt ("natural supermarket") in walking distance pretty much everywhere in Berlin.
There's also startups like Bonativo which deliver fresh and locally produced products and produce regularly (it is a bit expensive though).
I love that there are at least these options should you want them.
The juice tastes amazing, and the sweetness level is much lower.
Albert Heijn in the Netherlands is also big on these machines. We use it every time we visit.
> a lot of people (employees) don't know how to properly use juicers and they don't know that they need a proper cleaning after each user in order to prevent pathogens spreading.
If only there was some kind of method of knowledge transfer to these lowly peon workers who are clearly to stupid to know to clean things after use!
Ah yes, training.
Oh good, I thought you were afraid of chemicals
>I’m questioning the health or merit of so-called foods that are so devoid of flavor or color that we have to add back in chemical flavorings and colors to make them palatable.
Wait what? I thought you weren't questioning the health or merit chemicals? People like orange juice (more specifically, not from concentrate), and the cheapest way to produce something that resembles that is to store them in oxygen-free vats and add back flavor packs. Who cares if chemicals were used to achieve that flavor?
The article was written to inform consumers about what they're actually getting and how they're getting deceived.
It seems clear to me that the label has some value, it's just a matter of placing the line.
This book outlines all of that http://www.amazon.ca/Dorito-Effect-Surprising-Truth-Flavor/d...
If you don't want to read the whole book, here's the audio from a program called The Agenda with Steve Paikin with the author of The Dorito Effect. http://podcasts.tvo.org/theagenda/audio/2301343_48k.mp3
He should have just said he was questioning the health of those chemicals. That's what I would say.
1. Juice produced at industrial scale are loaded with sugar and are less nutritious than actual fruits (true, but also true of any juice, industrial or otherwise)
2. Juice produced at industrial scale is "unnatural" (also true, depending on your definition of "natural", but merely asserting that they are unnatural doesn't mean they're good or bad for you - naturalistic fallacy)
He can't assert that the chemicals are in fact bad for you because there's no proof of it, as mentioned elsewhere in this comment thread, and by his own admission these are the exact same chemicals you'd find in oranges anyway
It's almost as if they are two completely separate drinks.
> Haven’t you ever wondered why every glass of Tropicana Pure Premium orange juice tastes the same, no matter where in the world you buy it or what time of year you’re drinking it in? Or maybe your brand of choice is Minute Maid or Simply Orange or Florida’s Natural. Either way, I can ask the same question. Why is the taste and flavor so consistent?
> The packs added to juice earmarked for the North American market tend to contain high amounts of ethyl butyrate, a chemical in the fragrance of fresh squeezed orange juice that, juice companies have discovered, Americans favor. Mexicans and Brazilians have a different palate. Flavor packs fabricated for juice geared to these markets therefore highlight different chemicals
It's one reason why I'm a fan of Soylent. I hope it starts a trend where we get we get honest industrial food instead of fake natural food. I'm not not at all convinced that their product is unique, but I hope it starts a trend, where manufacturers don't hide the fact that flavor and nutrition need to be designed in, and instead try to explain why the design they chose is the best design.
As demonstrated by OP's example, "honest industrial food" is incompatible with the economic principles under which the industry operates. Companies emphasize the information that makes their product more appealing, while concealing information that would aid their competitors or dissuade some consumers.
Generally, food makers will only disclose the information that they are compelled to by law, and even then, they employ teams of food scientists and lawyers to maximize what can be hidden behind a label that is still technically compliant.
Fear of MSG is, chemically speaking, utter nonsense.
Even if it's true about the sodium, that still leaves MSG as way to sneak lots of sodium into a meal in a form that doesn't taste salty.
Incidents of the "restaurant syndrome" might be caused by a large amount being accidentally or carelessly dumped into the food. (E.g. the perforated lid comes off the MSG container while it is shaken and the food is served anyway).
If that happened with a salt container, they would think twice before serving it anyway, due to the food obviously tasting over-salted.
BTW this balance does seem to play a role in autism and ADHD, and suppressing glutamate is considered as an option in this article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25666800
"We examined the effects of topically applied amino acids (glutamate, aspartate, glycine, and taurine) and a synthetic glutamate analogue [N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)] on pial arteriolar tone and cortical surface cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) dilator prostanoid concentrations in anesthetized newborn pigs. [...] We conclude that these amino acids are potent dilators of the neonatal cerebral circulation."
"Taken together, these results indicate that glutamate contributes to the dilatory tone of cerebral microvessels under physiologic conditions and that this effect is mediated by NMDA receptors. Glutamatergic vasodilation is dependent on neuronal discharge activity and the neuronal production of NO."
Experiment with glutamate infusion in cardiac surgery patients:
"These data show that an intravenous glutamate infusion after routine CABG surgery significantly improved cardiac haemodynamic performance without direct effects on cardiac substrate metabolism. This suggests that a reduction of the afterload via a peripheral vasodilatory effect is the main mechanism leading to the observed changes in haemodynamics."
> I’m sure you’re careful to buy the kind that’s 100%
> juice and not made from concentrate. After all,
> that’s the healthier kind, right?
> flavor packs are made from orange by-products — even though
> these ‘by-products’ are so chemically manipulated that they
> hardly qualify as ‘by-products’ any more.
> Yet those in the industry will tell you that the flavor
> packs, whether made for reconstituted or pasteurized orange
> juice, resemble nothing found in nature
What's interesting is that these perceptions persist even when you have those foods again. Having been exhausted and very hungry once and having had fish & chips afterwards, that flavour (of fish 'n chip-shop deep fried cod and greasy chips) still knocks me over every time I have it.
The most interesting thing was that people were so used to the taste of the processed OJ that they preferred it to the fresh squeezed OJ.
this is a tiny part of the price i pay for being able to buy it in a shop from bulk suppliers rather than having to juice my own fruit... besides that, i don't think its a heavy price to pay - i'm not sure i really see the harm tbh.
its not like they are flavouring it with deadly toxic poisons.
i can remember asking my parents about this 20+ years ago the first time we bothered to squeeze our own juice, as the first response after tasting it... they didn't give me a page of information about the process exactly but it seems obvious that they knew this already from past experience.
i guess maybe there is a problem today that people just won't even try fresh orange juice...
I still find restaurants that claim to have fresh OJ when it's clearly not. I can see how it would slip through the cracks of some people's experiences.
Since realizing this, I've stuck to plain old oranges and fresh squeezed OJ and not had a problem. The link between consumer OJ and my migraines, if one exists at all, never made sense ("it's just crushed oranges, after all") until now.
So, theoretically at least, my body could have a bad reaction to whatever is in the flavor packs that are used to make the tasteless juice taste more like real orange juice.
Sulfur Dioxide The most widely used wine additive. It kills microbes and prevents oxidation. Few vintners dare to bottle a wine without it, but overuse can make a vino stink like burnt matches.
Ammonium Salts A touch of diammonium phosphate revives dying yeast and keeps it from producing too much sulfur.
Water If a batch of vino ends up a bit too boozy, just add some water.
Oak adjuncts Oak barrels can make wine taste drier and lend it notes of vanilla, but they’re expensive. A cheaper alternative? Oak chips, sawdust, or “essence”—a liquefied wood product that can be added directly to an otherwise finished wine.
Tartaric Acid A naturally occurring acid found in grapes, it’s particularly critical in white wines, where tartness gives each sip a pleasing snap. Wines with insufficient acidity can get a boost from powdered tartaric acid.
Powdered Tannin Naturally present in grape skins and seeds as well as oak, tannin creates texture and astringency. Typically made from a growth on oak trees called a nutgall, powdered tannin can punch up lackluster wine.
Sugar If grapes aren’t ripe enough when picked, adding cane or beet sugar to the must can help them ferment. The catch: Adding sugar, called chaptalization, is illegal in California, Italy, and Australia. (It’s legal in New Zealand, Oregon, and parts of France, though allowed amounts vary.)
Pectic Enzymes Complex proteins that can be used to alter color, improve clarity, release aromatic compounds, and speed up aging.
Gum Arabic Made from the sap of the acacia tree, gum arabic softens tannins to reduce astringency and make the wine’s body more silky. This can make a tough and somewhat bitter red wine ready to drink immediately.
Velcorin (dimethyl dicarbonate) First introduced in the 1980s—though increasingly controversial—this microbial control agent can kill a half-dozen wine-ruining bacteria and yeasts when added in minute quantities. It’s also widely used in fruit juices.
Mega Purple Made from the concentrated syrup of Rubired grapes, Mega Purple is a thick goo that winemakers rely on to correct color issues—a few drops can turn a bottle of wine from a weak salmon blush to an appealingly intense crimson—and to make a wine look consistent from batch to batch. In a 119-liter wine barrel, just 200 milliliters is enough to do the trick. Mega Purple is made by Constellation Brands, the company behind famous labels like Robert Mondavi and Ravenswood. While on the record no one will cop to using it (or any other additive), industry insiders say that even high-end winemakers have employed it to deepen the color of their wines, a trait that connotes richness and quality, earns better ratings from critics, and commands higher bottle prices.
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isinglass
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_and_wine
I have gotten it into my head that these are pretty much low-nutrition non-foods, and as such, I only eat them on the rare occasion.
And I always found the OJ to have a very distinct and unusual taste when in the US.
Being brazilian, I find US "orange juice" to be TERRIBLE. So yeah, we do have different tastes in juice.
Nothing beats freshly squeezed juice, as in just squeezed. Try to drink it one hour later and it will have changed the taste already.
Also, I'm not against labeling that the product is GMO-based. I want to point out at the dynamics around GMO labeling; their most vocal proponents create "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation.
I think it's a BS argument anyway because the average consumer, given two bags of apples that look identical, is going to buy the one that is cheaper. And if for some reason the public decided to never touch GMOs, then so be it. Food manufacturers can make their products in a way that consumers want to buy them. That's a free market. Not being shady and hiding information.
Yeah, I agree.
> And if for some reason the public decided to never touch GMOs, then so be it. Food manufacturers can make their products in a way that consumers want to buy them. That's a free market. Not being shady and hiding information.
So they do, and that's why we have organic food industry, which is even more shady than the original one. The reason we have this argument is that looking at why public decided to never touch GMOs makes one facepalm. It's mostly pseudo-science wrapped in FUD, perpetuated ad nauseam in popular press - creating fear and then playing off it. It's good for making money selling articles or ad views. It's not good for making this planet a better place for everyone.
With two incomes and 3 kids, my family has no time for homemade organic fermented (!?) Lemonade.
I'll tell my experience when visiting the US a few years ago. I'm from the Netherlands, and here almost all orange juice is "from concentrate".
It doesn't quite taste like freshly pressed juice, but I was never quite able to put my finger on it what was missing.
In the US I saw cartons of "actual really real juice not from concentrate really" for the first time, in a Whole Foods supermarket in Manhattan, NYC. So I got one of those and it was delicious. Still not quite like fresh juice, but really close.
(I don't think you can actually get the "real fresh orange juice" experience if you don't have fingers that smell like orange peel, and this vague worry that you should really wipe the kitchen counter before it'll dry all sticky)
So two days later I got another, different brand carton of "actually really real juice for realness totally not concentrate really". And it tasted pretty much like the "from concentrate" stuff at home (which still isn't bad, IMHO--unlike that "nectar" crap).
Next time at the same Whole Foods supermarket, I took a good look, and discovered there's basically (at least) two kinds of orange juice in the US: made from oranges in Florida, and made from oranges in Brazil (I think it was Brazil, 98% sure).
Now it made sense to me. In the Netherlands, nearly all our orange juice is from Brazil (afaik). And it was the "real juice not from concentrate" stuff from Florida oranges that was the juice that tasted (to me) mostly like fresh juice. And the Brazilian "real juice not from concentrate" that tasted like the "from concentrate" stuff at home.
Unfortunately I couldn't completely test the theory that maybe Florida oranges just juice better, concentrate or not, because at this particular Whole Foods I couldn't find any "Florida orange juice from concentrate". I'd have totally bought it to test the experiment, but I just couldn't spot any.
Does this make sense to any US-people? That have more time to buy and try different types of OJ? :-) Otherwise, just disregard this N=1 anecdote (but do let me know :P)
 There's an even cheaper kind called "orange nectar" which is half juice-from-concentrate plus water and some sugar/sweetener, but I can't imagine why anyone would buy that, ever. You can add water to juice at home without the sugar and it'll taste better, be cheaper, and healthier.
Though my main point was wondering whether "100% juice from concentrate" versus "real 100% juice not from concentrate" matters a lot for the flavour.
The Brazilian-oranges juice I bought in the US was not-from-concentrate, but still tasted very similar to the NL 100%-juice-from-concentrate stuff. While the Floridian-orange juice not-from-concentrate did almost like fresh juice.
It's not like I didn't like them btw. I don't expect it to taste like fresh juice anyway :)
If you want fruit, eat fruit. If you want a drink, drink some water. Why combine the two?
Fruit juice seems like basically a way to drink soda but with the delusion that it's good for you.
1) People know what's good for them
2) People want what's good for them
The existence of an economically viable product such as juice indicates that whatever the industry is doing, people want in its presented form.
Whether it's good for them or not is a completely different question.
Sure, the stuff tastes OK, but not as good as the fruit it comes from.